Reports one upscaling job's status, progress, and final result, optionally waiting until completion to return the outcome.
Report one job's status, progress and, once done, its result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | Job id returned by upscale, e.g. 'j3'. | |
| wait_seconds | No | Seconds to wait for the job to finish before answering; 0 = answer now. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful lifecycle behavior — the result is only available once the job is done — but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens for an unknown/expired job id, or any rate/blocking characteristics beyond what the schema states.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the core return content and adds the conditional result clause with zero waste.
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 and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It conveys what comes back and that the result is conditional on completion, but omits error/expiry behavior and polling guidance for a tool likely used in a wait loop.
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 the required job id and wait_seconds are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation details beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clear specific verb ("Report") plus resource (one job's status, progress, result) and an explicit scope of "one job", which implicitly separates it from jobs_list. However, it never names an actual sibling as the alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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 guidance, no mention of jobs_list or jobs_cancel, and nothing about when polling versus using wait_seconds is appropriate. Usage is only inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.