Retrieve a job's status, optionally waiting up to 50 seconds for completion. Finished jobs return a failure summary.
Status of a job; waitMs (≤50s) waits for it to finish. Finished jobs return the failure summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| waitMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the wait is bounded to ≤50s, and finished jobs return a failure summary. This extra behavioral detail is helpful, though it omits other traits like retry behavior or status value semantics.
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?
One tight sentence with a semicolon; purpose is front-loaded, followed by the wait behavior and the return note. No wasted words.
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?
Given a simple two-parameter status tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the optional wait limit, and the failure summary for finished jobs. The only notable gap is the lack of any explanation for the required id parameter.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains waitMs clearly (waits for finish, ≤50s), but the required id parameter is left completely undocumented, leaving the agent to infer that it refers to a job identifier.
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 clear verb+resource: retrieving the status of a job. The scope is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like job_output and job_cancel, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts with those alternatives, so it misses the top mark.
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?
Implies usage by describing the optional waitMs parameter as a way to wait for completion, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., use job_output for results, job_list for all jobs). The agent must infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.