Wait for an asynchronous job to complete and retrieve its final result with logs. Use after starting a job without waiting to get the outcome when ready.
Bloquea hasta que un job termine (o se cumpla timeout_seconds) y devuelve el resultado final con el log completo (o su tail). Usalo después de run/plan_run con wait:false cuando ya querés el resultado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| tail_lines | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool blocks, but fails to mention what happens on timeout (does it return partial results or throw?), whether it can be cancelled, or any rate-limiting or re-entrancy behavior. The only behavioral hint beyond 'blocks' is returning a log/tail, which is insufficient for a potentially long-running operation.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then provides usage context. It avoids unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more explicit about the parameter semantics without becoming verbose.
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 complexity (blocking operation with three parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It tells the agent the tool waits and returns a result, but leaves out crucial details: exact return format, behavior on timeout, how `tail_lines` modifies the log, and whether the tool can be called multiple times. The agent likely won't know how to interpret the result or handle edge cases.
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%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It mentions `timeout_seconds` in passing ('se cumpla timeout_seconds') but does not explain its semantics beyond existence, and `tail_lines` is completely ignored. The agent is left without guidance on how these parameters affect behavior, forcing reliance on defaults or guessing.
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 a specific action (block until job finishes) and a distinct outcome (returns final result with full log or tail). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by tying usage to `run`/`plan_run` with `wait:false`, making it unmistakable which tool to pick.
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 explicitly states when to use it: after `run`/`plan_run` with `wait:false` when you want the result. This is clear context, though it does not mention alternatives like `job_status` or `job_log` for non-blocking checks. It provides a strong precondition but omits explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.