SuperPost

View downloaded source image

get_source_image

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads the status of a source image job bound to sourceAssetId and expectedRevision. A completed result includes the original workspace mediaId for reuse in an authorized media request and a bounded JPEG view as native image content. The view is a reduced derivative, not the full-resolution original. Current source grants, provider, revision, job binding, and media ownership are rechecked. This read does not initiate or retry work, publish content, or modify source files.

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": {
      "sourceAssetId": "<sourceAssetId>",
      "expectedRevision": "<expectedRevision>",
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "get_source_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes
`sourceAssetId`	Yes
`expectedRevision`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`mediaId`	No
`createdAt`	Yes
`errorCode`	No
`updatedAt`	Yes
`sourceAssetId`	Yes
`sourceRevision`	No
`viewRepresentation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: authorization rechecks (source grants, provider, revision, job binding, media ownership), the shape of a completed result (workspace mediaId plus bounded JPEG as native image content), and the caveat that the view is a reduced derivative rather than the full-resolution original. It also enumerates what the call will not do, which is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. It is dense but each sentence contributes purpose, return shape, or scope limits; the result-shape sentence is arguably redundant with the output schema but still earns its place by warning about derivative resolution.

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 three-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is sufficient: it explains what is returned, what is revalidated, and what side effects are excluded. The main residual gap is error/incomplete-job behavior, which is minor given the output schema covers return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% with three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it. It ties sourceAssetId and expectedRevision to the job binding and notes revision is rechecked, but never explains what expectedRevision represents (a staleness/concurrency token?) or what happens on mismatch, and jobId is not mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the status of a source image job, scoped by sourceAssetId and expectedRevision. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as request_source_image (which starts work) and read_source_file (a different artifact), reinforced by the explicit 'does not initiate or retry work' clause.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the polling/status-read counterpart to request_source_image, and the negative clauses rule out retry and publish scenarios. However, no sibling is named as an alternative and there is no explicit 'use this when the job is pending/complete' routing guidance.

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

All SuperPost 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?