Retrieve the current processing state of an Echosaw analysis job. This tool uses server-side long-polling — it holds the connection for up to 25 seconds, checking for completion internally, so you do not need to poll repeatedly. Call once and wait for the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mediaId | Yes | The mediaId returned by echosaw_analyze_media_url |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the server-side long-polling mechanism and the 25-second hold, which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It adds useful behavioral context about how the tool operates, though it doesn't mention timeout handling or possible failure modes.
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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that immediately state purpose, explain the polling behavior, and give a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage sufficiently. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though it doesn't explicitly describe return values (no output schema to reference).
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 coverage is 100% with the single parameter mediaId fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond referencing that it is the mediaId returned by echosaw_analyze_media_url, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve the current processing state of an Echosaw analysis job.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('processing state of an Echosaw analysis job'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like echosaw_get_analysis_results that likely fetch final results.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: it explains the long-polling behavior (holds connection up to 25 seconds) and instructs 'Call once and wait for the response,' explicitly advising against repeated polling. It doesn't name a specific alternative tool, but the guidance is practical and clear.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: analysis jobs (submit, check, get results, download), folder management (create, delete, list, rename), media operations (list, move, search, set visibility), and account info (organization, profile). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow the consistent pattern `echosaw_<verb>_<noun>`, using clear verbs like analyze, check, create, delete, get, list, move, rename, search, and set. The naming style is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 14 tools, the server covers a well-scoped platform for media analysis and library management. Each tool serves a clear purpose without feeling bloated or sparse, fitting comfortably within the ideal range.
The server covers the full analysis workflow, folder organization, media searching, and account retrieval. Minor gaps exist such as lack of media deletion or job cancellation, but core workflows are well supported and no critical dead ends are apparent.
