Check a job's current status and its available execution details by providing the job ID. Use this to monitor workflow runs and identify their outcomes.
Read a job's status and available execution details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by saying 'Read'. The description adds no new behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but that is acceptable given the strongly annotated safety profile.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool reads and what it returns.
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?
Given the single required parameter, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete for safe invocation. It tells the agent what the tool returns without needing to explain return structure or side effects.
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 description does not describe job_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the single parameter is self-explanatory ('job_id' with UUID format) and the schema clearly marks it as required, so the schema carries the semantic weight sufficiently despite the lack of description-level compensation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a job's status and available execution details'), clearly identifying this as the single-job retrieval tool. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like list_jobs and cancel_job even without reading their schemas.
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 does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'Read' plus the sibling tool names makes the usage context obvious: use this for read-only status lookup rather than cancellation or execution. This is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.