Polls a download job until it completes, fails, or is cancelled and returns the final task status; use it to track an existing job by ID and get its outcome.
轮询下载任务直到完成、失败或取消；返回最终任务状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | 下载任务 ID | |
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important behavior that this is a polling/blocking call that exits on completion, failure, or cancellation. However, it omits what happens when the wait times out (returning an intermediate state? error?), whether it blocks the caller, and any rate/polling interval details.
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 compact sentence with the action and termination conditions front-loaded and no filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so it loses points only slightly.
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 two-parameter blocking call with no output schema, the core idea is conveyed, but key details are missing: what the returned 'final status' values look like and how timeout interacts with the result. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 only 50%: job_id is documented but timeout_seconds has no description anywhere. The description never mentions the timeout at all, even though the default of 120s and the 5-600 range materially change behavior; the description therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 (poll/wait) and resource (download job), plus the terminal conditions (completion, failure, cancellation). An agent can tell this is a blocking wait rather than a one-shot status read like tnd_get_status, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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 only implied: the agent must infer that this is for blocking until a job finishes, while tnd_get_status/tnd_get_jobs are for non-blocking inspection. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.