callable

get_task_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Poll the status and retrieve the result of a previously submitted task. Returns the current status (pending, in_progress, pending_review, completed, disputed), the result payload, and any output URLs (video, screenshot). Use this in a polling loop after submit_task if no callback_url was provided.

Tool call template

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes	The task ID returned when the task was submitted

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	No	Task result payload when completed
`status`	Yes
`task_id`	Yes
`operator`	No	Name of the operator who completed the task
`output_url`	No	URL to download output file (video, screenshot, etc.)
`completed_at`	No	ISO timestamp of completion

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 16, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "completed_at": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp of completion",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operator": {
+      "description": "Name of the operator who completed the task",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "output_url": {
+      "description": "URL to download output file (video, screenshot, etc.)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Task result payload when completed",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "pending",
+        "in_progress",
+        "pending_review",
+        "completed",
+        "disputed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "task_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "task_id",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (status values, result payload, output URLs) and prescribing a polling loop usage, which reinforces the safe, idempotent nature. No contradictions, and the added context is meaningful.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return details, then usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. Very concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (single parameter), has annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the essential return values and provides guidance for the common polling use case. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema fully describes task_id with 'The task ID returned when the task was submitted' (100% coverage). The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: polling status and retrieving results of a previously submitted task. It uses specific verbs ('poll', 'retrieve') and identifies the resource ('status and result'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (submit_task, review_task) by focusing on post-submission status and result retrieval.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'in a polling loop after submit_task if no callback_url was provided.' It also implicitly gives a when-not condition (if a callback_url is provided, polling may be unnecessary), and references the sibling submit_task for context. This is clear usage direction.

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

All callable tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?