get_videoCheck a video started with create_video. Returns "queued" or "processing" while it renders, "completed" with the hosted video URL when it is ready, or a terminal failure if the render failed. Poll every few seconds until it is either completed or failed (both are terminal: stop polling once you see one). The clip is charged once, on completion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The video job id returned by create_video. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real context beyond annotations: the enumerated return states, the terminal-state rule, and the fact that billing happens once on completion (which explains the readOnlyHint=false despite this being a status check). It doesn't say anything about how long queued jobs typically take or how to handle 404s on an expired job id, so the behavioral picture isn't fully closed.
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?
Three tight sentences ordered by importance: what it checks, what it returns, then how to poll and when billing occurs. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to drive the loop correctly.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the possible return states and their meanings. Nothing an agent needs to correctly poll and interpret a result is missing.
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% and the single parameter is already described as 'the video job id returned by create_video'; the description only repeats that provenance. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work for one param.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Check a video started with create_video') and names the sibling that produces the id, so it's immediately distinguishable from create_video and the generate_* family. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.
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?
Gives explicit usage guidance: poll every few seconds, and stop once the status is completed or failed because both are terminal. It also rules out over-polling implicitly by stating the terminal conditions. No alternative tool competes for this role, so nothing more is needed.
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.