Retro Diffusion Pixel Art MCP

List Async Jobs

list_inference_jobs

Read-onlyIdempotent

List your most recent async jobs, newest first (GET /v1/inferences/tasks).

Recovery path: if a submission response was lost (timeout, disconnect) before the task_id arrived, the job was still accepted — find it here instead of re-submitting and being charged twice. Then poll it with get_inference_job.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of recent jobs to return (1-100, default 20).
`status`	No	Optional: only return jobs with this status.
`rd_api_key`	No	RetroDiffusion API key (rdpk-...) for this call only; overrides session or header auth.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'newest first' ordering and recovery context but no new behavioral traits beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences that are efficient and front-loaded, with no waste. The description earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema (unseen but acknowledged), so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage scenario, and recovery path adequately for a simple list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds context linking parameters to the recovery use case, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema offers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List your most recent async jobs, newest first' with the endpoint, distinguishing it from siblings like get_inference_job and start_inference_job.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly describes a recovery scenario when a submission response is lost, telling when to use this tool and what to do next (poll with get_inference_job), thus providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Retro Diffusion Pixel Art MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., create_inference vs start_inference_job vs get_inference_result). However, the difference between create_user_style/update_user_style and per-inference references could still cause confusion, and list_available_models/list_available_styles overlap slightly.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_inference, get_balance, list_edit_tools, delete_user_style). No mixing of camelCase or other styles, making the surface highly predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 20 tools covering authentication, inference (sync/async), styles, editing, cost estimation, and status, the count is appropriate for a pixel art generation API. Each tool addresses a distinct need without bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle: auth, cost estimation, synchronous/async generation, style management, editing, and result retrieval. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list or manage user styles (e.g., get_user_styles), but this is non-critical for core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?