get_generationCheck the status of a 3D asset generation request to see if it is queued, running, succeeded, failed, or canceled, including progress, file URLs, license, and refund details.
Status of a generation: queued, running (with progress and poll_after_seconds), succeeded (with file URLs and license) or failed/canceled (with refund information).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| generation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds genuinely useful state-dependent behavior: progress reporting and a caller-facing poll_after_seconds on running, file URLs and license on success, and refund information on failure/cancellation. It stops short of documenting ID validity, retention/expiry of URLs, or error behavior for unknown IDs.
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 front-loaded sentence with a compact state-by-state enumeration; every clause carries information and nothing is padded or repeated.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully covers the shape of each return state, which is exactly what an agent needs before polling. It is nearly complete for a status endpoint, missing only edge behavior (invalid/expired IDs, URL lifetime) and the explicit polling workflow.
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% and the single required parameter generation_id has no description anywhere. The description never clarifies that the parameter is the ID returned by a generation-triggering tool, or what forms are accepted, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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+resource ('Status of a generation') and enumerates the four terminal states it can report, which is far more precise than a bare name restatement. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_generations (bulk listing) or cancel_generation (mutation), leaving that differentiation to the name.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of 'poll_after_seconds' on the running state signals this is a polling endpoint, but the description never says when to call it (e.g. after generate_texture/generate_pbr_material) or how it differs from list_generations. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.