Check the status of a report generation task started by run_report, returning the result URL once it completes.
Poll the status of a report generation task started by run_report (returns status and result URL when finished)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task ID returned by run_report | |
| report_id | Yes | Report ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that it returns status and provides a result URL when finished. This tells the agent what to expect from the polling cycle, though it does not describe error behavior or status value ranges.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action (poll status) and the key output (result URL when finished). Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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 the low complexity (2 params, no output schema, annotations cover safety), the description is nearly sufficient. It explains what the tool does and what it returns on completion. A slight gap is the lack of detail about the interim status values or error handling, but the word 'poll' implies repeated calls, and annotations cover the safety profile.
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%, so both parameters (task_id and report_id) are already documented. The description only reinforces that task_id comes from run_report, which the schema already states. It adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('status of a report generation task'), and explicitly names the initiating tool 'run_report'. This clearly distinguishes it from its siblings, especially 'run_report' which starts the task, and 'get_report' which would fetch a completed report.
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 states the usage context: poll tasks started by run_report. It implies the agent should call this after run_report and repeat until finished. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you only need an existing report, use get_report).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.