get_article_export_statusCheck an export started by start_article_export. Returns a download resource link when complete without exposing the internal job identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| fileName | No | ||
| mimeType | No | ||
| progress | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The descripption adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns a download link when complete and does not expose the internal job identifier. It does not cover failure or polling behavior, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.
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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral detail about the download link and hidden internal identifier is compact and relevant.
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?
For a simple, read-only, one-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient. It could add a note about polling or invalid job IDs, but the core invocation path is clear.
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 schema has no description coverage for the single required jobId parameter. The description implies that the jobId relates to an export started by start_article_export, but it does not explicitly state that jobId is the identifier returned by that call or provide format details. It provides minimal compensation for the 0% schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('an export started by start_article_export'), and it states the distinctive outcome: returning a download resource link when complete. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools like get_conversion_status and get_publish_status by tying it to the export workflow.
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 makes the usage context clear: it is for checking an export that was started by start_article_export. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the resource scoping is unambiguous enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes across article CRUD, review workflows, publishing, and conversion/export. Minor confusion can arise between convert_document and start_article_export (and their corresponding status checkers), but the descriptions explicitly differentiate arbitrary content conversion from exporting stored documents. The render_article tool's broad contextual wording overlaps conceptually with several actions, though its actual function (opening the reader) is unique.
All 22 tool names follow a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as list_articles, accept_suggestion, start_article_export, and unpublish_article. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or camelCase outliers, making the naming highly predictable.
At 22 tools, the server sits above the ideal 3-15 range and feels somewhat heavy for an MCP surface. The inclusion of record_article_app_event, a component-only telemetry tool with no agent-facing value, adds to this heaviness. However, the breadth of the domain—documents, collaboration, publishing, and conversion—largely justifies the count.
The tool surface covers article lifecycle, review threads, publishing, export/conversion, and presence well, covering most common workflows. A notable gap is the lack of any delete_article or trash operation, leaving no way to remove documents. Additionally, updates are limited to anchored edits via edit_article, with no direct full-content replacement option.