Check the status of an AVL analysis job by job ID, returning its current state (queued, running, completed, failed, cancelled, or interrupted) and case counts.
Read queued/running/completed/failed/cancelled/interrupted state and case counts. success=true means the status was read; inspect state/error for solver outcome.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by explaining that success=true merely means the status was read, and that state/error should be inspected for the actual solver outcome. It also lists the possible lifecycle states.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the important caveat about success semantics is front-loaded. 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?
For a simple single-parameter status tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description provides the state enumeration and clarifies how to interpret success/error. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning the origin or format of job_id, but overall it gives enough context for correct invocation.
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 does not elaborate on job_id, such as where it comes from or what format it expects. The parameter name 'Job Id' is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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?
Description uses a clear verb ('Read') with a specific resource (job state and case counts) and enumerates the relevant state values. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like avl.results or avl.health, but the focus on status and solver outcome is sufficiently distinct.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as avl.results or avl.health. The description implies it is for status polling, but it does not state exclusions or direct the agent toward sibling tools when appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.