Retrieve the current status of an art asset operation by operation ID. Verify whether generation, style checks, or provider execution has completed successfully or needs follow-up.
Get the status of a provider operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens when an operation_id is invalid, whether it can be called repeatedly, or any side effects. The wording implies a query but lacks explicit safety or error behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, though it is not verbose enough to lose points.
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 tool with one simple parameter, it is still incomplete. It does not explain what a provider operation is, what status values might be returned, or how to obtain an operation_id. Without an output schema or further context, an agent lacks enough information to use it effectively.
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?
The schema has no descriptions for operation_id and coverage is 0%. The description adds no context about what operation_id represents, its format, or how to obtain it. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 clearly states the action (get) and the resource (status of a provider operation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute, cancel, or list. It is concise and unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as art.provider.execute or art.provider.cancel. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need an operation_id from a prior execute call) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.