Check a project's processing status to know when render, TTS, or video generation finishes. Poll with the project ID to confirm completion and avoid premature actions.
Check the processing status of a project. Use this to poll for completion after triggering render, TTS, or video generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID to check status for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-only status poll and implies non-blocking use. However, it does not disclose possible status values, how the response looks, or behavior for unknown project 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?
Two concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage context in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the missing return-value description creates a real gap. The agent knows when to call it, but not what statuses to expect or how to interpret the response.
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 100%, so the schema already documents project_id. The description only repeats 'of a project' and adds no format, constraints, or relationship to triggering operations. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('processing status of a project'), and the polling context distinguishes it from CRUD and generation siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it misses the highest bar for differentiation.
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 description clearly tells the agent when to use the tool: poll for completion after render, TTS, or video generation. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer get_project or list_projects, so there is a small gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.