Check the status of a SPICE dataset refresh to confirm completion or identify errors. Provide the dataset and ingestion IDs.
Check the status of a SPICE dataset refresh.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset_id | Yes | The QuickSight dataset ID. | |
| ingestion_id | Yes | The ingestion ID returned by refresh_dataset. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, matching the 'check' wording, so no contradiction. But the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether statuses are terminal/pending, whether polling is expected, or how long results remain queryable.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is concise and well-structured, though the brevity leaves gaps rather than being tightly complete.
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 return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, for a status-polling tool in a family containing refresh_dataset/cancel_refresh/list_recent_refreshes, the absence of any workflow or usage context leaves it only minimally complete.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the pointer back to refresh_dataset. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (check) and resource (SPICE dataset refresh status), and the schema ties it to dataset_id/ingestion_id from refresh_dataset. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from list_recent_refreshes or cancel_refresh, which are the nearest siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_recent_refreshes, refresh_dataset, or cancel_refresh. The only contextual link, that ingestion_id comes from refresh_dataset, lives in the schema, not the description. An agent must infer the polling/status-check workflow itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.