Skip to main content
Glama

jobs_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve status, progress, result, or error for a single enqueued job ID to poll one local job until completion.

Instructions

Get status, progress, result, or error for a job_id from jobs_enqueue. Prefer for polling one job; use jobs_list to browse many. Local job store only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "jobs_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesJob id returned by jobs_enqueue

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / job_id / description
      Added value: +"Job id returned by jobs_enqueue"
  2. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by enumerating the returnable states (status, progress, result, error) and by clarifying the store is local. It does not say what happens for an unknown or expired job_id, which would be the last piece.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the routing rule, then the scope limit. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and when to use it. Minor gaps remain around terminal vs in-progress states and unknown job ids, but nothing blocks a correct call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single job_id parameter, so the schema already defines format and requiredness. The description adds provenance — the id must come from jobs_enqueue — which links the parameter to the correct upstream call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and the full set of things it retrieves (status, progress, result, error) for a single job_id, and explicitly contrasts with jobs_list for browsing many. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Prefer for polling one job; use jobs_list to browse many" gives an explicit selection rule and names the alternative tool. "Local job store only" adds a scope boundary that tells the agent not to expect remote/external job ids.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.