Check the status of a character animation batch created from video or text by retrieving its current progress and export settings.
Retrieves batch details including status, progress, and export settings. Use this endpoint to check the status of a batch job created via /motion/fromVideo or /motion/fromText.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batchID | Yes | The batch ID to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the response includes status, progress, and export settings, which is useful but not a rich behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences with the main action and relevant context front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetitive or extraneous wording.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: what it returns, how to use it, and where the batch ID comes from. It could additionally point to list_batch_motions for obtaining batch IDs, but the description is functionally sufficient.
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 parameter already has a clear description and example. The description adds minimal parameter meaning, mostly linking batchID to the creation endpoints, but does not provide additional format or lifecycle details.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource as batch details, listing status, progress, and export settings. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_motion or list_batch_motions, but the batch-specific scope is clear enough.
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 second sentence gives a direct use case: check the status of batch jobs created via /motion/fromVideo or /motion/fromText. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the intended context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.