Check the status of an ingestion job by job ID or pool name to monitor progress and confirm completion.
Check the status of an ingestion job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | Job ID from trawl_reindex_pool | |
| pool_name | No | Pool name (alternative to job_id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never states that, nor does it describe return shape, whether statuses are terminal (running/complete/failed), polling cadence, or what happens when the job is unknown.
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 sentence with no wasted words and nothing to trim, but it is under-specified rather than concise — brevity comes at the cost of missing operational detail.
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 must explain both safety profile and what a status result looks like, and it does neither. It also leaves the job_id vs pool_name relationship (both optional, 'alternative to') unclarified.
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%, and the schema already explains both job_id (with its originating tool) and pool_name as an alternative. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of an ingestion job.' An agent can tell this is a status/polling tool, distinct in kind from trawl_ingest_file or trawl_ingest_url. It does not distinguish itself from trawl_workflow_status or mullet_status, which serve the same status-checking purpose for different 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 on when to call this versus alternatives, how often to poll, or what to do once a job reaches a terminal state. The only routing hint is a parameter description pointing back to trawl_reindex_pool, which is in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.