Fetch the current status of a transcoding job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| texts | No | ||
| audios | No | ||
| images | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| videos | No | ||
| percent | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| status_url | No | ||
| api_version | No | ||
| source_size | No | ||
| error_description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., latency, staleness, or whether it blocks), but it does not contradict the annotations. Since the bar is lowered by annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 is minimal and omits crucial context: the meaning of task_token and when to choose this tool over get_job_status_detailed or wait_for_job. Even with an output schema present, the lack of usage guidance and parameter explanation makes it incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented task_token parameter. It does not explain that task_token identifies the job, nor does it provide any semantic meaning. The agent is left to guess what this token refers to.
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 states a clear verb (fetch) and resource (status of a transcoding job), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_job_status_detailed and wait_for_job. The action and target are unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_job_status_detailed provides more detail or that wait_for_job blocks until completion, leaving the agent without routing context.
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.
