Reads async crawl job status and partial results, and automatically resumes incomplete tasks. Poll progress counts only by setting include_results to false.
读取异步爬取任务的状态与部分结果；未完成的任务会自动续跑。
Args: job_id: web_crawl_start 返回的任务 ID。 include_results: False 时只返回进度与计数，不返回已抓页面正文（适合轮询）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| include_results | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.21.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: unfinished jobs are automatically resumed, meaning this call can advance work rather than being a pure passive read. It also explains the payload trade-off of include_results. Auth requirements, error/terminal states, and result retention are not covered, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
One lead sentence states the purpose and the auto-resume behavior, followed by a compact Args block covering both parameters. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant or buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Purpose, both parameters, and the auto-resume side effect are all covered for a two-parameter tool. Minor gaps remain around job lifecycle states and whether partial results persist after completion.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: job_id is defined by its origin (returned by web_crawl_start), and include_results is explained in terms of what is and is not returned. Both parameters are covered with meaning beyond their names.
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 states a specific verb and resource: read the status and partial results of an asynchronous crawl job. The clause '未完成的任务会自动续跑' further distinguishes it from static status reads, and naming web_crawl_start as the source of job_id ties it to a sibling. It does not explicitly contrast with web_crawl_list or web_crawl_cancel, so a 5 is not warranted.
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?
It gives clear usage context: job_id comes from web_crawl_start, and include_results=False is recommended for polling because page bodies are then omitted. No explicit exclusions or guidance on when to prefer web_crawl_list or web_crawl_cancel, so it falls short of the when/when-not/alternatives bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.