recipal_get_label_render_statusStatus of a label render started with recipal_start_label_render: waiting, processing, ready or error. When ready, url is a temporary presigned download link. Poll about once a second; each poll counts toward the weekly request limit. GET /recipes/label_renders/{token}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Render token returned by recipal_start_label_render. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only cover the read-only/safety profile; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the four status values, that url is a temporary presigned download link only when ready, the recommended polling cadence, and that polls are rate-limited against the weekly quota. That is substantial context beyond the structured fields.
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 front-loaded with the resource and statuses, then operational guidance, then the endpoint. No filler; every clause carries information.
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, yet the description names the key return fields (status values, url meaning) and the rate-limit caveat, which is everything an agent needs to poll correctly and avoid quota waste.
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?
With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents token and its source. The description echoes the origin tool but adds no format, constraint, or handling detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (get label render status) plus the exact status set (waiting, processing, ready, error), and ties it to the sibling that creates the token. An agent can immediately distinguish this polling tool from recipal_start_label_render.
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?
Clear precondition: use after recipal_start_label_render with the returned token, poll roughly once a second, and note that each poll consumes the weekly request limit. It lacks an explicit 'stop polling when ready/error' or when-not statement, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.
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.