Check a task belonging to the connected account and get its video link when ready.
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_generation"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds that results are scoped to the connected account and that the video link is only returned when ready. It omits what happens while the task is pending — a status field, an error, or a null link — which is the single most important behavioral detail for a polling tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded and free of filler; the entire description is a single declarative statement. Brevity here is close to under-specification rather than tightness, but nothing is wasted.
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, so the description bears responsibility for describing the return value, and it does so only loosely ("video link when ready"). For a read-only polling tool with one parameter, the definition is minimally workable but leaves pending/error states and the source of task_id unexplained.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of task_id, and it does not: it never explains that the ID is the task identifier returned by generate_video, nor its format or lifetime. The only added value is the account-scoping note.
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 names a specific verb and resource pair ("check a task") and states the outcome ("get its video link when ready"), so an agent knows this is a status/polling tool that returns a video URL. It is clear, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling generate_video, leaving the relationship to be inferred from the name alone.
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?
"when ready" implies a polling pattern, but the description never says when to call this versus generate_video, how often to poll, or where the task_id originates. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.