Poll a video project until it completes, errors, is canceled, or times out. Returns sanitized download fields. Use exact_download_urls[n] or downloads[n].url exactly as returned; do not shorten it, remove query parameters, or append expiration metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| max_inline_downloads | No | ||
| poll_interval_seconds | No | ||
| include_inline_downloads | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does so by stating that the tool repeatedly polls until completion, error, cancel, or timeout, and returns sanitized download fields. It also adds an important operational warning about using exact_download_urls[n] or downloads[n].url verbatim, which goes beyond the schema.
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, both purposeful: the first defines the tool's behavior and terminal states; the second gives a critical URL-handling directive. The main verb is front-loaded and no text is wasted.
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?
The description covers the main waiting behavior and the download-URL caveat, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 undocumented parameters it leaves gaps around optional inline-download params, exact return shape, and how it relates to sibling retrieve/fetch tools. It is adequate for a default id-only call, but not fully complete.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. 'Poll' and 'times out' implicitly map to poll_interval_seconds and timeout_seconds, but max_inline_downloads, include_inline_downloads, and the required id are not explained at all.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Poll' and names the resource, 'a video project'. It enumerates the terminal states it waits for — completes, errors, canceled, times out — and states the result, sanitized download fields, making it clearly distinguishable from create/retrieve/delete siblings.
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 first sentence establishes a clear use case: use this tool when you need to poll an existing video project until it reaches a terminal state. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like video_projects_retrieve_details or create_video tools, and there are no exclusion statements, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.
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 are differentiated by product-specific prefixes (e.g., lip_sync, text_to_video, image_upscaler), but the set contains many overlapping create_image/create_video tools, and generic editors like ai_image_editor_create_image and ai_video_editor_create_video blur boundaries with their more specific counterparts. Face/body swapping tools also occupy a similar conceptual space, requiring careful description reading to avoid misselection.
Names generally follow a descriptive snake_case pattern of feature plus action (e.g., text_to_video_create_video, image_projects_delete, wait_for_image_project). Minor inconsistencies like ai_face_editor_edit_image versus the dominant create_image suffix, and the mixed ai_ prefix usage across tools, prevent a perfect score.
44 tools is a large surface for an MCP server, even for a broad media-generation API. The count exceeds the 25+ threshold and creates a heavy selection burden, especially with over a dozen create tools for images and videos.
The surface covers the full create-to-download workflow for image, video, and audio: creation, status polling, wait helpers, fetch helpers, delete, and asset upload support. Minor gaps include no list/cancel endpoints and no general project search, but agents can complete core tasks without dead ends.
