Poll a submitted task by app and task ID to retrieve its current status, result, and submission metadata from the Postgres queue.
Poll one task submitted via task_submit. Reads the fleet Postgres queue and returns the task row — status, result, submitted_by, timestamps — or {error: not_found} for an unknown task_id. Read-only; poll until the worker marks the task complete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | ||
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3Input schema / properties / app_id / titleAdded value: +"App Id"Input schema / properties / task_id / titleAdded value: +"Task Id"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"task_statusArguments"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses that it reads from the fleet Postgres queue, is read-only, and returns an error for unknown task_id. While annotations already indicate read-only, the description adds error handling and poll semantics.
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?
Three concise sentences, with the primary action first, followed by details. No unnecessary words.
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?
No output schema, but description specifies return fields and error case. It covers the main use case but omits details like status values or other error responses.
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 has no descriptions for app_id and task_id. The description explains task_id as identifier from task_submit, but does not clarify app_id's role, leaving a gap.
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 the tool polls a single task submitted via task_submit, and distinguishes it from task_list by focusing on a single task_id. It also specifies the returned fields.
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?
It implies usage after task submission and for polling until completion, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like task_list or task_submit. The 'poll until' suggests iterative use, but no explicit when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.