yorai_get_jobRetrieve a job's status and outputs by ID, and optionally poll for up to 55 seconds until it finishes or the wait ends.
Get a job's status and outputs. Set wait_seconds (max 55) to poll until it finishes or the wait ends. Status: queued, running, succeeded, failed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| wait_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the status state machine (queued, running, succeeded, failed) and the long-polling semantics of wait_seconds. It omits edge cases such as unknown or expired job ids and whether outputs are partial while running.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the polling control, then the status vocabulary. No filler, and each sentence adds information the agent actually needs.
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, but the description indicates the return carries status and outputs and enumerates the possible statuses, which is enough to interpret a response. The remaining gap is that 'outputs' is never characterized, so the agent cannot anticipate the payload shape.
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%, so the description must carry both parameters. It explains wait_seconds well, including the polling cutoff, but says nothing about id: where the agent obtains one (presumably from yorai_create_job or yorai_list_jobs) or whether it is a job identifier versus another resource type.
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: getting a single job's status and outputs. That singular retrieval is clearly distinct from yorai_list_jobs and yorai_create_job, though the description never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.
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?
Gives concrete use guidance for wait_seconds: poll until the job finishes or the wait ends, with the 55-second cap. It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer a get over yorai_list_jobs, and names no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.