Retrieve the current status of an asynchronous Etchv watermarking job without waiting by providing its request ID and original operation (embed or detect).
Read job state without waiting. Use the operation from the original submission. Requires the matching watermarks:embed or watermarks:detect scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is a non-blocking read ('without waiting') and it requires the matching watermarks:embed or watermarks:detect scope, which is an authorization requirement not visible in the schema or annotations.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior ('without waiting') front-loaded before the invocation constraints. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the description should say what 'job state' returns (status only? result included?) and how it relates to get_job_result, but it does not. The scope requirement partially compensates, but the result-shape gap is significant for a polling-style tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does clarify that 'operation' must match the original submission (a coupling constraint beyond the bare enum), but it says nothing about the request_id format or source, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 job state') plus a distinguishing behavioral trait ('without waiting'), which separates it from a result-fetching sibling like get_job_result. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping this just short of a 5.
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?
Offers one concrete usage rule ('Use the operation from the original submission'), which tells the agent how to populate a required field. However, it never states when to call this versus get_job_result or how often to poll, leaving the primary routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.