Retrieve the current status, output, or error from a background task by providing its unique task ID.
Check the status, output, or error of a background task dispatched via agent_send.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task ID returned from agent_send (e.g. 'task_claude_12345') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Check,' which hints at a read-only operation, but it does not confirm idempotency, authorization requirements, or whether the tool can be called multiple times safely. The lack of behavioral details is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is present, making it efficient. However, it could include brief behavioral notes without bloating the text, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter context. However, it lacks any indication of what the tool returns (e.g., format of status/output/error), which would help an agent invoke it correctly without relying on trial and error.
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%—the taskId parameter already includes a clear description (e.g., 'Task ID returned from agent_send'). The tool description adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, hitting the baseline score for high coverage without additional benefit.
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 explicitly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'status, output, or error of a background task dispatched via agent_send.' This clearly defines the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like agent_send (dispatch), agent_cancel, and agent_evidence_check, which serve distinct roles.
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?
The description implies usage after agent_send by referencing 'task dispatched via agent_send,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use after sending a task to poll for completion'). No guidance on when not to use it is provided, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.