Retrieve events for a public flow build job and stream event payloads by job ID, with polling, streaming, or direct delivery.
Get events for a public flow build job, including streaming event payloads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Public build job ID | |
| event_delivery | No | Event delivery mode |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, whether polling consumes/drains events, whether events are retained or expire, or what happens with each delivery mode. 'Including streaming event payloads' hints at one behavior but is not elaborated.
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 filler; the resource is named first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the behavioral questions it leaves open.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what comes back. For a tool whose whole purpose is emitting event payloads across three delivery modes, it omits pagination, retention, payload shape, and the semantics of the delivery enum — an agent could call it but cannot predict the result.
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 100%, with both job_id and event_delivery documented and event_delivery constrained by an enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain the practical difference between polling, streaming, and direct delivery, which is the one genuinely ambiguous parameter.
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: retrieves events for a 'public flow build job'. The 'public build job' qualifier distinguishes it from the nearby get_flow_events and get_workflow_events, though it never names those siblings explicitly. The added clause 'including streaming event payloads' narrows scope further.
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 call this versus get_flow_events, get_workflow_events, or get_extension_events, nor when a build job's events are relevant (during build? after completion? after cancel_public_build?). Nothing indicates the relationship between the event_delivery modes and caller intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.