cloud_job_statusCheck the status of a real or sandbox job by ID. Optionally wait for completion with configurable timeout and poll intervals, with automatic sandbox detection.
Đọc job thật hoặc sandbox theo ID; API tự nhận diện sandbox nên không cần header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No | ||
| job_id | Yes | ||
| sandbox | No | sandbox=true: thử 0đ, không cần ví | |
| timeout_sec | No | ||
| interval_sec | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that sandbox vs real jobs are auto-detected server-side, but it omits the most salient behavior for a job tool: the wait/polling semantics implied by wait=true, timeout_sec and interval_sec defaults.
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 that front-loads the core action and ends with the sandbox note. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely 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?
For a job-tracking tool with a wait/poll mode, there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what status information is returned, nor about the polling parameters. Given the sparse schema coverage and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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 only 20% — just the sandbox param is documented. The description compensates only for job_id and sandbox, leaving wait, timeout_sec and interval_sec with no explanation in either place, which is a real gap for a polling tool where wait/timeout change behavior fundamentally.
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 states a specific verb and resource in Vietnamese: 'Đọc job thật hoặc sandbox theo ID' (read a real or sandbox job by ID), which is clear enough to act on. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling vibecloud_job_status, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.
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?
It implies usage (pass a job ID to read its status) and clarifies that no header is needed because the API auto-detects sandbox, which is helpful context. It provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing versus vibecloud_job_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.