Check a background job's progress and outcome by ID, returning concise one-line details.
One line per job.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints at output format ('one line per job'). It does not say whether this is a read-only snapshot, whether it blocks while jobs run, or what fields each line contains. That is a significant gap for a status-reporting tool in a job-control family.
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?
It is certainly short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy. The single fragment is not front-loading any actionable information an agent could use to decide or invoke correctly.
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?
For a tool with an undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies almost nothing. An agent cannot determine semantics, return fields, or relationship to sibling job-control tools from eight words.
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 coverage is 0% and the single optional 'id' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'one line per job' implies a list-all default, but the description never explains whether supplying 'id' narrows output to one job or changes the format entirely.
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 four-word description 'One line per job' describes an output shape rather than what the tool does; it never says it reports job status or lists jobs. An agent must infer the verb and resource from the name 'status' alone, and the description restates the name more than it clarifies it.
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 whatsoever on when to call this versus siblings such as inspect, result, or wait, all of which could plausibly answer 'what is the state of my job?'. No prerequisites, no polling advice, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.