Poll any async job's status (running, done, or failed) without fetching its result, enabling cheap repeated checks in loops.
Lightweight poll of any async job (from an *_submit tool). Returns {job_id, kind, status: 'running'|'done'|'failed', elapsed_s, meta} (+ error when failed) WITHOUT the result payload — cheap to call in a loop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape, the status enum, the presence of an error field on failure, and that no result payload is included — all useful behavioral context. It does not state explicitly that the call is read-only/side-effect free or describe failure modes, leaving some gaps.
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?
A single dense sentence with a compact inline return-shape spec; the value proposition (no payload → cheap) is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description itself enumerates the returned fields and their meaning, plus the failure case. For a one-parameter polling tool, everything needed to call it correctly is present.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter job_id is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by tying the id to an *_submit tool, implying where it comes from, but adds no format or validity detail. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb (poll) plus resource (any async job) and names its origin (*_submit tool). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling job_result by noting it returns status WITHOUT the result payload.
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?
Gives clear context (after an *_submit tool) and a usage pattern (cheap to call in a loop), which implies polling rather than fetching results. It stops short of explicitly naming job_result as the alternative for retrieving payloads, so it stops at 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.