Retrieve an execution job's details by its job ID. The dispatch token is not included.
Read an execution job (without dispatch_token).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the returned job omits dispatch_token — but says nothing about error behavior or what a missing/invalid job_id yields.
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 short sentence with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the parenthetical caveat. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than concise.
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 only one required parameter, so the bar is low and the annotations carry the safety story. Even so, for a fetch tool the description omits how to obtain job_id and what the job record contains, and the dispatch_token remark is unexplained.
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 0% and the single required parameter job_id has no description in either place. The description never explains what a job_id is, its format, or where to obtain it (presumably from list_execution_jobs), leaving the only parameter under-specified.
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 and resource ("Read an execution job"), which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling list_execution_jobs. However, it never names that sibling or otherwise differentiates explicitly, and the parenthetical about dispatch_token is cryptic rather than clarifying.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_execution_jobs. The agent is left to infer that this fetches one job by id rather than enumerating jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.