job_resultRetrieve an asynchronous job's outcome: status, elapsed time, and result or error. Optionally discard the job and its cache entry once retrieved.
Fetch an async job's outcome. Returns {job_id, kind, status, elapsed_s, result (when done) | error (when failed)}; while running neither is set. discard=True frees a terminal job (and its cache entry) once you have it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| discard | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating the tool should not modify state, yet the description says 'discard=True frees a terminal job (and its cache entry),' which is a destructive side effect. This directly contradicts the annotation and makes the behavioral contract inconsistent and confusing.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, packs the return shape into compact syntax, and addresses the optional discard behavior without repetition.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape and the discard side effect well. However, the contradiction with readOnlyHint=true and the lack of explicit connection to submit/job_status tools leave the overall picture incomplete and internally inconsistent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the discard parameter by explaining that True frees the terminal job and its cache entry. job_id is left to its name and the return snippet, which is likely sufficient but not elaborated, so the compensation is only partial.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch an async job's outcome,' and then lists the exact return payload, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling job_status tool, so differentiation is implicit rather than named.
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?
The description implies the tool is the follow-up call after an async submit and describes terminal-state behavior, so a competent agent can infer when to use it. However, it never names alternatives such as job_status for progress checks or job_list for enumeration, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.