Retrieve the status and result of a browsing task by polling with its task ID until completion. Use to determine success or failure and obtain the final outcome.
Poll for browsing task status and result. Call until status is 'succeeded' or 'failed'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Input for retrieving a browsing or research task result."Input schema / properties / task_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"The task's unique identifier"Input schema / titlePrevious value: -"TaskIdInput"New value: +"get_browsing_task_resultArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "get_browsing_task_resultOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only operation, and the description adds the polling aspect. No contradictions; it discloses the need for repeated calls.
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 concise sentences with front-loaded action verb, 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?
Covers polling loop and terminal statuses; output schema exists so return values are not needed. Minor gaps in error handling or rate limits, but adequate.
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 only required parameter 'task_id' has no description in the schema or the tool description, leaving its meaning unelaborated despite self-explanatory name.
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 it polls for browsing task status and result, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_browsing_task by specifying the polling behavior.
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 explicitly instructs to call until status is 'succeeded' or 'failed', providing a clear usage pattern. However, it does not mention polling interval or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.