Check a subtitle transcription job's progress, retrieve generated subtitle file paths, and view recent execution logs using its job ID.
查某支轉字幕工作的進度、產出的字幕檔路徑，以及最近的執行訊息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| log_lines | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns progress, subtitle file paths, and recent execution messages, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or any permission or rate-limit considerations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose and returned data with no filler whatsoever.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It covers the general return content but leaves parameter semantics, especially log_lines, and usage alternatives unexplained, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.
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 must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It implies selecting a specific job via '某支' but does not name job_id or explain its format, and it never mentions log_lines or what that parameter controls.
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 gives a specific verb (查/check) and resource (某支轉字幕工作/a subtitle transcription job), and it enumerates the returned information: progress, output subtitle path, and recent execution messages. It clearly distinguishes itself from transcribe_list and transcribe_start by focusing on one job's status, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as transcribe_list for listing jobs or transcribe_start for creating them, so the agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.