Inspect a background or scheduled job's progress, exit status, and recent execution logs using its job ID.
Inspects the execution logs, exit status, and progress of a background or scheduled job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Unique execution Job ID returned by tealkit_run_background | |
| tail_lines | No | Number of trailing log lines to retrieve (default: 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the categories of information returned (logs, exit status, progress), which usefully implies a read-only inspection. However, it never states that the operation is non-destructive or read-only, nor whether it blocks/polls on a running job or what happens for an unknown job_id.
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 tight sentence with the resource and the returned information front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return content and it does so by naming logs, exit status, and progress. For a 2-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the not-found/error behavior and the overlap with tealkit_list_jobs remain unaddressed.
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%, with job_id tied to tealkit_run_background and tail_lines documented with its default of 50, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('Inspects') and names the concrete outputs (execution logs, exit status, progress) for a background or scheduled job. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tealkit_list_jobs, so an agent must guess which one to call for job state.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. The sibling tealkit_list_jobs clearly overlaps (both surface job state), yet the description offers no routing rule, and it doesn't say that tealkit_run_background must be called first to obtain a job_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.