Retrieve the progress of an asset started with generate_asset using its job ID. When complete, fetch the full markdown asset saved to your library.
Collect an asset started with generate_asset. While it is building you get its progress; when it is done you get the full asset as markdown (also saved to your Andru library). Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job_id returned by generate_asset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations covering only the safety profile (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint), the description adds the behavioral details that matter: it is a polling call whose response changes shape (progress while building, full asset when complete), the payload format is markdown, the result is persisted to the Andru library, and there is no cost. These are traits an agent cannot infer from 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 tight sentences with no filler: the action and its prerequisite come first, followed by the state-dependent return behavior. Everything earns its place, including the trailing cost note.
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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing both possible responses (progress vs full markdown asset). For a one-parameter polling tool this is sufficient to call and interpret it correctly.
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 100% and the single parameter's description already states it is the job_id from generate_asset. The description adds no syntax, format, or lifecycle detail (e.g. expiry) beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (collect) and resource (asset) and ties it explicitly to the producing tool, generate_asset. This clearly separates it from siblings like generate_asset (which creates the job) and list_assets (which enumerates existing assets).
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?
Tells the agent when to call it (after generate_asset, with the returned job_id) and what to expect at each stage. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given, but the dependency on generate_asset makes the usage context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.