isingq_solve_pollPoll an IsingQ remote solve task by solve_id and update the local record; on success, return bits, variable mapping, provider energy, and QUBO objective values.
查询一次 IsingQ 远端任务并更新本地记录；成功时返回 bit、变量映射、provider energy 和 QUBO 目标值。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solve_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | 工具调用是否成功 | |
| data | No | 成功时返回的数据 | |
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains why by disclosing the local-record update side effect — that is genuine behavioral context beyond the flags. It also scopes the return payload to success ('成功时'), implying failure yields something different. It stops short of saying whether the call blocks or how often to poll.
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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. The trailing clause listing return fields is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is wasteful.
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 enumerating return values is not required, and the tool is otherwise simple with one parameter. Still missing: whether the task must be running, what a non-terminal response looks like, and how this differs from isingq_solve_result_get — gaps an agent polling for progress would want closed.
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 single required parameter solve_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so neither layer documents its format or source. The phrase '远端任务' only weakly implies a task identifier.
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-plus-resource (查询 IsingQ 远端任务) and adds the key effect (更新本地记录) and the success return payload. This is clear without opening the schema, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling isingq_solve_result_get, which sounds like it retrieves the same output.
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 says it queries '一次' (once), which hints at a repeated-polling pattern, but it gives no explicit when/when-not, no prerequisites, and no comparison to isingq_solve_result_get. With a near-identical results sibling present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.