PDF.co MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_job_check

Check the status and results of a background job. Returns working, success, failed, or aborted states to help determine if processing completed.

Instructions

Check the status and results of a job
Status can be:
- working: background job is currently in work or does not exist.
- success: background job was successfully finished.
- failed: background job failed for some reason (see message for more details).
- aborted: background job was aborted.
- unknown: unknown background job id. Available only when force is set to true for input request.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_job_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	The ID of the job to get the status of
`api_key`	No	PDF.co API key. If not provided, will use X_API_KEY environment variable. (Optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 15, 2025

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description transparently lists all possible statuses and their meanings, including 'working' for nonexistent jobs. Given no annotations, it carries the burden well, though it could mention it is a read-only operation with no side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient, front-loading the purpose, and each line serves a clear function. The list of statuses could be formatted for clarity, but overall it is concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description adequately explains status outcomes but does not clarify what 'results' entails (e.g., return format). Since there is no output schema, more detail on what the tool returns would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks job status and results, listing possible statuses. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'wait_job_completion', which may be used for similar purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied (when you have a job ID), but the description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wait_job_completion', nor when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.