Check file load progress by job ID, including phase, rows, bytes, percentage, bad rows, and result; optionally wait up to 5 seconds for completion.
Progress of a file load (phase, rows, bytes, %, bad rows, result). wait_ms: wait up to this long (max 5 s)
for it to finish before answering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| wait_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavior: the returned progress fields and the fact that wait_ms can block for up to five seconds. It does not describe error or missing-job behavior, but it adds substantial context beyond annotations.
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?
Two compact sentences, with the return payload front-loaded and the only nontrivial parameter behavior called out immediately. There is no unnecessary wording.
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?
For a simple status-polling tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the returned progress information and the wait behavior. The main gap is the lack of relationship guidance to load_file_start or load_file_info, which would help an agent place job_id correctly.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It fully explains wait_ms, including its blocking behavior and five-second maximum, but leaves job_id undocumented and does not say where the job ID should come from.
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 identifies the resource as a file load and states that it reports progress, enumerating phase, rows, bytes, percentage, bad rows, and result. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like load_file_info or load_file_pipeline, but the purpose is clear.
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?
Usage is implied for polling an in-progress load, and wait_ms gives useful polling behavior. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of load_file_info, load_file_pipeline, or load_file_cancel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.