Check the status of frontmatter enrichment jobs. Use to monitor progress and outcomes of enrichment tasks.
Return the status of frontmatter enrichment jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | number of recent jobs when job_id is omitted | |
| job_id | No | optional job id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Return the status' without disclosing error handling, side effects, or edge cases (e.g., job_id not found, invalid limit). The behavior is underspecified.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the function. It is well-structured and to the point, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool is simple but lacks context about the output format or status values, and the output schema is not provided. An agent would need additional information to interpret the response correctly, so the description is incomplete.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (limit for number of recent jobs, job_id as optional). The tool description adds no additional meaning, and schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns the status of frontmatter enrichment jobs, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'enrich_frontmatter' that performs the enrichment action, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied through the parameter descriptions (limit for recent jobs when job_id omitted, job_id for a specific job) but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to check status vs. trigger enrichment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.