job_statusRetrieve the current status of a job by its ID, including state, process ID, exit code, and buffer sizes. Use this to monitor job progress and completion.
Show state, pid, exit code and buffer sizes for a job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific fields shown (state, pid, exit code, buffer sizes) but does not mention any error behavior or prerequisites like the job must exist. It does not contradict the annotations, and the added detail is modest.
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 one short sentence that immediately states the purpose and the exact fields. No filler or redundant information. It is well front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the output schema exists, the return format is covered. However, the description does not provide any context on when to call it in a job lifecycle (e.g., after job_start) or how it relates to job_wait and job_list. For a low-complexity tool this is adequate, but a brief usage hint would improve completeness.
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?
The schema has a single required param job_id with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description only says 'for a job,' which does not clarify that job_id is the identifier returned by job_start or job_list. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool shows job status fields: state, pid, exit code, and buffer sizes. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like job_list (list all jobs) and job_output (show output). The scope is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that one uses it to inspect a specific job's status, but no exclusions or comparisons are given. Given the large set of job-related tools (job_start, job_wait, job_cancel), a sentence about when to prefer this would have helped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.