get_jobQueries a job by original ID to return call status and business outcome, helping verify completion and check original nodes, resources, or submitId for partial or unknown results without resubmitting.
只查询原jobId；status表示调用状态，operationOutcome表示业务结果。COMPLETED不代表媒体完成；partial/unknown按recovery核查原节点、资源或submitId，不重提。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds non-obvious semantics annotations cannot carry: the distinction between status (invocation state) and operationOutcome (business result), and the warning that COMPLETED does not mean the media is finished. The 'partial/unknown → recovery, do not resubmit' directive is exactly the kind of behavioral guidance an agent needs, though not-found/error behavior is unstated.
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 dense clauses, front-loaded with the scoping constraint followed by the return-value warnings. Every phrase contributes information; nothing is redundant.
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 exists, so the description usefully explains the two key result fields (status, operationOutcome) and how to interpret the terminal-looking COMPLETED state. It stops short of describing what happens on an invalid or missing jobId, which is the one gap for a read-only lookup tool.
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 carries the parameter burden. It does add a real constraint — the ID must be the original jobId, not one from a resubmission — but it provides no format, validation, or not-found semantics for the single required string parameter, which the schema only partially covers via its hex pattern.
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 opening clause '只查询原jobId' identifies the verb (query) and the resource (job by ID), and the title '查询已有即梦任务' reinforces it. It implicitly distinguishes itself from submit_job/cancel_job by scoping to an existing original jobId, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 gives one concrete usage rule — for partial/unknown outcomes, inspect the original node/resource/submitId and do not resubmit — which meaningfully steers agent behavior. However it never states when to prefer get_job over list_jobs or when a job must be polled vs. abandoned, so the selection guidance against siblings is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.