sima

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

job_result

Retrieves the final report for a finished job, including the rank test table, proposed rank, and IRF bands. Returns no partial data and reports when the job is not finished.

Instructions

The FINAL result of a finished job, with its report: a rank test's table and proposed rank (recorded at C1), the IRF bands (then used by impulse_response and the plots), a sweep cell. A job that is not finished has no result: this tool says so and returns nothing partial — a decision waits for it (the autonomous lane does not decide a node before).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "job_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add important behavior: unfinished jobs produce no partial result, and the return includes specific report artifacts. It still omits basic behavioral facts such as whether this is a read-only/idempotent retrieval and what the error or empty-result response looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key point is front-loaded ('The FINAL result of a finished job'), but the sentence is dense, run-on, and uses unexplained jargon and parentheticals. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter tool but could be clearer and better structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully explain return values, but it does helpfully characterize the report contents. The main gaps are the missing job_id semantics and the lack of explicit routing to job_status for checking completion.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never explains what job_id is, where to obtain it, or any format expectations. It implies a job identifier exists but adds essentially no parameter-level guidance beyond the schema's parameter name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that this returns the FINAL result of a finished job, and it specifies the kinds of report contents (rank test table, IRF bands, sweep cell). It implicitly distinguishes itself from status-related siblings by emphasizing final results, though it does not name job_status or jobs explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit usage condition: the job must be finished, and an unfinished job returns no result. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent to use job_status first or explain when to prefer job_result over other job-related tools such as jobs or job_status.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.