Get the current status of a song job by job_id — a single check with no waiting. Returns the audio URLs if complete, an error if it failed, or 'processing' if still rendering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job_id returned by generate_song. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the three possible outcomes (URLs, error, processing) and notes it is non-waiting. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that includes all essential information: action, resource, query parameter, and response types. No unnecessary 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outcomes. However, it could improve by specifying the response format (e.g., JSON) or noting that no side effects occur.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for job_id. The description adds context beyond the schema by specifying 'The job_id returned by generate_song', telling the agent where to obtain the parameter value.
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 it gets the status of a song job by job_id, with a single check and no waiting. It distinguishes from siblings generate_song (creation) and wait_for_song (presumably polling).
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 explicitly says 'a single check with no waiting', implying use for one-time status checks. The sibling tools provide alternatives, but the description could more directly say when not to use it (e.g., for waiting, use wait_for_song).
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: generate_song creates a job, check_song provides a one-time status check, and wait_for_song polls until completion. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: generate_song, wait_for_song, check_song. Very predictable and readable.
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a narrow purpose (song generation). It covers the essential workflow without being overly small.
The tools cover the core generation lifecycle (create, check, wait), but lack operations like cancel, list, or delete songs, which are notable gaps for a complete service.
