Retrieve a job's process result and up to 16 KiB of recent log output to verify step status and diagnose failures; note that a succeeded step does not prove playability.
Get process result and at most 16 KiB of log tail. A succeeded step is not playability evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description is not responsible for the safety profile. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the 16 KiB log-tail cap and warning that a succeeded step is not playability evidence, which affects how the result should be interpreted.
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?
The description is two short sentences with the core retrieval behavior front-loaded. The second sentence adds a concrete interpretive caveat, so every sentence earns its place.
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?
Because an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the definition is not required to explain return values or side effects. However, it omits meaningful context about the sole required input and provides little routing guidance among sibling job tools.
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 needs to compensate for the undocumented job_id parameter. It does not mention job_id at all, give its format, or explain where to obtain it; only the property name itself makes the parameter minimally understandable.
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: get the process result plus a bounded log tail. It is clearly a retrieval tool rather than a mutation tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as cancel_job or start_step.
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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives to choose from. The retrieval framing implies it should be used to inspect a job, but the agent must infer that from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.