Retrieve the current status of an asynchronous operation using its unique ID. Verify completion or failure to proceed with subsequent cloud tasks.
Проверить статус асинхронной операции по ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes | ID операции для проверки статуса |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the nominal purpose and does not mention response format, whether the operation result is included, or any polling/error behavior.
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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain what the status response contains or how the agent should interpret it. It is minimally sufficient to identify the call but incomplete for fully informed invocation.
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 input schema already documents operation_id with 100% coverage, and the description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter documentation.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Проверить') and resource ('статус асинхронной операции по ID'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_instance or list_instances by focusing on asynchronous operation status rather than resources.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after starting an async operation or for polling workflows. The purpose is implied but not explicitly contextualized.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.