get_job_statusCheck the current status of a submitted SAS job using its job ID to determine if it is pending, running, or completed.
Check the status of a submitted job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ID of the job. |
| 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 establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds only minimal context that the job was 'submitted' but does not disclose behavior beyond the annotations, such as whether the status reflects completion, failure, or queued state.
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 with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the core action and resource clearly.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Nothing critical is missing.
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?
The input schema fully documents job_id as 'ID of the job,' so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, leaving the schema to carry the burden as expected.
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 clearly states a specific action and resource: checking the status of a submitted job. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_job, get_job_log, and list_jobs, which either perform different actions or return different data.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_jobs or get_job_log. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'submitted job'; there are no decision criteria, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.