Retrieve the status and progress of a LoRA training job using its job ID or name to monitor training runs and track completion.
Status and progress of one job. job is a job id or name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the call returns status and progress, which is largely restating what the output schema provides; there is no note on staleness, polling cadence, or which job states exist for a running job.
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 short sentences with the return content front-loaded and the parameter note second; no filler. It is terse to the point of being fragmentary, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and a single required param is simple. Still, for a tool sitting among list_jobs, get_job_config, and get_job_log, the definition never positions itself in that family, leaving the agent to guess which call answers 'is my job done?'.
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 carry the parameter. It does add value by clarifying that 'job' accepts either an id or a name — something the bare string schema does not say — but gives no id format examples or hints on where to obtain one.
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 the resource ('one job') and what it returns ('status and progress'), which is a specific and greppable purpose. The phrase 'one job' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_jobs, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 on when to use this versus the many adjacent siblings such as list_jobs, get_job_config, get_job_log, or get_loss. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the summary-status call rather than a config, log, or metrics call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.