查询长任务状态。★ hosted 端点无跨请求任务句柄，返回 honest_note 引导到 stdio 模式。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"task_id": "<task_id>"
},
"name": "get_task_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | 任务 ID（stdio 模式下 start_long_task 返回） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden but fulfills it exceptionally well. It discloses critical technical constraints (lack of cross-request task handle) and a key behavioral trait (the response guiding the user to stdio mode), which are essential behavioral details.
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?
The description is appropriately sized, highly concise, and front-loads the most important technical warning (the constraint about cross-request handles) to ensure immediate agent attention.
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?
Given the complexity implied by the technical warnings (hosted endpoint, stdio mode, lack of cross-request handles), the description is complete. It provides the necessary operational context that a general status tool would lack.
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?
Since the schema coverage is 100%, the schema already documents the 'task_id' parameter fully. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond confirming that this ID is used for long-task tracking.
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 purpose is clearly stated as querying the status of long-running tasks. Crucially, it differentiates itself by explicitly mentioning constraints related to the 'hosted endpoint' and the 'stdio mode' guidance, which is vital context for selection over general status checkers.
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?
While it does not name sibling tools, it provides clear usage guidelines regarding operational context: use this tool when interacting with the 'hosted endpoint' and when the system requires guidance toward 'stdio mode' via an honest note.
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.