codex_job_statusCheck a background run's current state with its job ID: whether it is running, exit code, elapsed time, and event count.
Report the state of a run that moved to the background: whether it is still running, its exit code, how long it has taken and how many events it has produced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job id returned by a tool call that went to the background. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what the status check returns: running state, exit code, elapsed time, and event count. It does not contradict annotations and supplements them with meaningful output expectations.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the returned status details. Every clause adds useful information, with no redundant or filler text.
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 simplicity, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description adequately covers input, behavior, and return contents. It tells the agent what data the call will provide, which is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 covers the single parameter job_id with a clear description ('Job id returned by a tool call that went to the background'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: 'Report the state of a run that moved to the background' and lists the concrete details it reports (still running, exit code, elapsed time, event count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_job_logs and codex_job_cancel, which serve different purposes.
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 provides clear context by explaining that the tool applies to backgrounded runs rather than active or cancellable jobs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the domain context from the sibling tools makes the intended use reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.