get_job_statusTrack current status and progress of a running or completed Champollion pipeline job by output directory and job ID to monitor or debug runs.
Get the current status and progress of a running or completed job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| output_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not state read-only safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or that it will not modify or cancel the job.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse given the required parameters and sibling alternatives.
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?
An output schema covers return values, but with no annotations and zero parameter descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining output_dir and distinguishing this from list_jobs/get_job_log. It does neither.
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 description mentions neither job_id nor output_dir. An agent must infer job_id from the word 'job,' and output_dir is completely unexplained.
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 ('Get') and resource ('status and progress') scoped to a 'running or completed job.' It implicitly distinguishes from list_jobs and get_job_log but does not name those siblings 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus list_jobs, get_job_log, or cancel_job, and no prerequisites such as where job_id or output_dir come from. The only hint is the phrase 'running or completed job,' which implies a single-job context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.