Check a job's current status—running, done, failed, or cancelled—along with exit code, duration, and recent log lines for quick troubleshooting.
Estado actual de un job: running/done/failed/cancelled, exit code, duración, y las últimas líneas del log (tail chico por default — para más, usá job_log).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| tail_lines | No | Cuántas líneas finales del log incluir (default: 30). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by listing the exact status set (running/done/failed/cancelled), the fields returned (exit code, duration, log tail), and the default tail behavior. It does not explicitly state whether the call is non-blocking or read-only, but 'current status' strongly implies it.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output, then adds the default-tail caveat and alternative tool. Every clause adds useful information with no repetition or filler.
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 tool's low complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the response contains, names the default behavior, and points to job_log for extended logs. It does not cover error cases like an unknown job_id or contrast with job_wait, but these are minor for a read-only status check.
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 50%: tail_lines is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces it by noting the small default tail and routing to job_log for more. job_id, however, is only a parameter name with no additional semantic guidance beyond 'job', which is a partial gap at this coverage level.
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 action and resource: getting the current status of a job, and enumerates the exact contents returned (status values, exit code, duration, last log lines). It explicitly differentiates itself from job_log by noting that the log tail is small and that job_log should be used for more.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve the current status of a job. It also names an alternative, job_log, for cases where more log output is needed. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like job_wait or job_list, so the when-not-to-use guidance is incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.