Check a subagent job's state and progress by job ID; set wait_seconds to wait up to 600 seconds for completion instead of polling in a tight loop.
State and progress of a job. Use wait_seconds instead of polling in a tight loop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job ID returned by subagent_start. | |
| wait_seconds | No | Wait up to this many seconds for the job to finish before returning. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it: it never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether the call blocks, what states a job can be in, or how often it can be called. The polling remark hints at the blocking semantics of wait_seconds but does not explain them.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource identified up front and the operational tip second. It is efficient, though the terse noun phrase trades clarity for brevity.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for what a status response contains and how it relates to the five sibling job tools. It leaves the agent guessing about job state vocabulary and about when subagent_wait or subagent_result would be the better call.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description adds only a usage rationale for wait_seconds (avoid tight polling loops) rather than new format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 phrase 'State and progress of a job' identifies the resource but supplies no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a read/status-retrieval operation. It is not obviously differentiated from siblings like subagent_wait or subagent_result, which plausibly also report 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?
'Use wait_seconds instead of polling in a tight loop' is real usage guidance, but it is guidance about how to call the tool, not about when to choose it over subagent_wait, subagent_result, or subagent_list. No when-not conditions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.