Check the status of a running HPC job and retrieve its tail output, optionally waiting until completion.
Poll a running job. Optionally wait for completion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optionally wait for completion' but does not disclose that the tool can block up to 3600 seconds, what timeout=0 means, how detach affects job survival, or any side effects. This is a significant gap 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 two short sentences with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is concise in the good sense, though it achieves this by omitting important context.
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 tool with nested required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, blocking semantics, what 'completion' means, error behavior, or where this fits in the job lifecycle alongside submit_job and cancel_job.
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 description names none of the parameters. While the nested schema provides descriptions for instance_id, job_id, tail, timeout, and detach, the top-level input wrapper has no description and the tool description adds zero meaning about the required contract. Given the stated 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a running job.' It clearly identifies the core operation and is distinct from sibling tools like submit_job, cancel_job, or list_jobs. However, it does not explicitly clarify how 'poll' differs from listing jobs or what happens for non-running jobs.
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 gives no guidance on when to use poll_job versus list_jobs or cancel_job. 'Optionally wait for completion' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit context about polling after submission, checking status, or when to avoid using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.