Fetch a job's terminal result or long-poll up to 60 seconds for completion, with max_chars limiting output to control token usage.
Get a terminal result or long-poll for up to 60 seconds. max_chars controls main-agent token usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| wait_ms | No | ||
| max_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the call can block for up to 60 seconds, and max_chars governs token consumption. However, it omits critical behavior for a polling tool — what is returned or raised if the job is still running after the wait, and whether wait_ms=0 returns immediately or errors.
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?
Two short sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler. The behavioral constraint (long-poll cap) and the cost-control knob are stated before any detail, which is exactly the right ordering.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage on three parameters, yet the description never describes the return payload ('terminal result' could be text, JSON, or status plus output) or the non-terminal/timeout case. For an async result-fetching tool, those gaps leave the agent unable to interpret the response.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and does so partially: max_chars is explained ('controls main-agent token usage') and the '60 seconds' bound gives meaning to wait_ms's 60000 maximum. job_id's format is undocumented, and wait_ms is only implied rather than explained directly.
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 ('Get a terminal result') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('terminal' rather than status). It implicitly separates itself from get_job_status by targeting the result rather than the state, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 get_job_status, list_jobs, or continue_job. The 60-second long-poll is described as a capability, not as a decision rule for choosing this tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.