Reads new output from a background shell job since the last call, reports whether it is still running, and returns the exit code when finished.
Read new output from a background job started with shell, since the last call. Reports whether the job is still running and its exit code once finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job id returned by shell |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses incremental reads and that it reports running status plus exit code once finished, but it leaves out details like blocking behavior, output limits, error handling, and return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no waste. The incremental-read constraint and return information are front-loaded and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned in behavioral terms: new output, running status, and exit code. Minor gaps around output limits and error cases remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one required parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains that job_id is the id returned by shell. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: read new output from a background job started with shell, incrementally since the last call. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling shell tools by tying the job to shell-started background work and naming its status/exit-code reporting behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clearly implies usage after starting a background job with shell and clarifies that reads are incremental. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as shell_list for discovery or shell_kill for termination, but the context is sufficiently clear for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.