Fetch a remote conversion job by ID to check its status and retrieve the resulting Markdown.
Fetch a remote job.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "markovo_job_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the job can expire or be queried after completion, retry/polling expectations, or what a job in progress looks like. For a job-status tool these are exactly the behaviors an agent needs.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy – there is nothing to front-load because almost no information is communicated.
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 one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information and it supplies essentially none: not the return shape, not polling guidance, not error conditions. It is inadequate for a job-lifecycle 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?
There is one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It does not say where the job_id comes from (presumably returned by a sibling tool) or what format it takes, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 gives a verb and resource ('Fetch a remote job'), but the name promises job status while the text says only 'fetch a remote job' – an agent cannot tell whether this returns the job's status, its metadata, or the job's result. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like markovo_job_assets or markovo_convert.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of polling semantics or how it relates to the job-producing siblings (e.g. markovo_convert_url, markovo_convert). The agent must infer that this is the status-check counterpart to a job-creating call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.