get_jobRetrieve a job with its most recent application and nested ownership details, replicas, handovers, and pending requests to understand handover status.
Get a job with its most recent application. The nested job carries ownership (owned_here, owner, handover, pending_requests), identifying replicas and jobs being handed over.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context about the payload shape (nested ownership fields: owned_here, owner, handover, pending_requests) and what those fields identify, which goes beyond the annotations.
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 sentences, purpose front-loaded first, return-shape detail second. Efficient and no padding, though the second sentence is dense with parenthetical field names.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return burden; it partially does by naming the ownership fields. But job_id semantics and the relationship to siblings (get_application) are left unstated, leaving gaps for a lookup tool.
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 adds nothing about job_id — no format, source, or how to obtain a valid id. With a single undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Get a job') and adds scope detail ('with its most recent application'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_jobs and get_application. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the agent can tell what it retrieves.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_application, list_jobs, or get_job_search_brief. Usage is only implied by the word 'Get' on a single job_id; no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.