qencode

wait_for_job

Read-onlyIdempotent

Poll a transcoding job until it reaches a terminal state or times out.

Three independent exit conditions, in priority order:

1. The upstream reports a terminal status (``completed`` / ``error``
   / ``failed``) or an explicit ``error`` field.
2. The wall-clock deadline derived from ``timeout_seconds`` is
   reached.
3. **MCP10 cap** — iterations exceed ``dos.MAX_POLLS``. This guards
   against a malicious or buggy caller passing
   ``timeout_seconds=1e9`` (or a poll_interval clamped down by
   another bug) and pinning an event-loop slot indefinitely. The
   cap returns the last observed status so the caller still gets
   structured data, just earlier than they asked for.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_token`	Yes
`poll_interval`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds detailed behavioral traits: three exit conditions, priority order, MCP10 cap guarding against malicious timeouts, and returns last observed status. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence (including the cap explanation) adds value. Appropriate length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a polling tool with good annotations and an output schema, description covers exit conditions, priority, cap, and return behavior enough. Output schema covers return value details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides meaning for timeout_seconds (deadline derived from it) and poll_interval (can be clamped down), but does not explicitly define task_token or units/defaults for poll_interval. Partially compensates.

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?

Description states 'Poll a transcoding job until it reaches a terminal state or times out,' a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It differentiates from siblings like get_job_status by emphasizing polling/waiting.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description implies usage context: block until job completes or timeout. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the polling semantics are clear. Lacks explicit 'use when' guidance.

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

All qencode 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct (list_buckets vs list_objects, search vs fetch docs). Minor overlap exists between transcode_video and start_encode2_raw (both submit jobs) and between get_job_status and get_job_status_detailed, but the descriptions explicitly state when to use which, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names overwhelmingly follow verb_noun (create_bucket, list_buckets, get_download_url, transcode_video). A few deviations like start_encode2_raw, wait_for_job, and download_url_to_bucket break the pure pattern, but the convention is still easily predictable.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for a video encoding platform: bucket management, transcoding submission/status/wait, result retrieval, and docs search/read. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main lifecycle: create bucket, ingest via copy, transcode (two entry points), poll status, fetch result, and generate download URLs. Missing cancel/delete operations for jobs and buckets are notable but not critical for core workflows, and the docs tools help fill knowledge gaps.

wait_for_job

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources