Skip to main content
Glama

x_api_get_media_upload_status

Retrieve the current status of a media upload by providing the media ID. Useful for checking whether an upload is pending, in progress, or complete.

Instructions

Get Media upload status. Use when: Get Media upload status. Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required before the API call or you are only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first. Risk: read-only. Required permissions and prerequisites: OAuth 2 user token with scopes media.write; OAuth 1a user token Environment-selection behavior: scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId or scopeAccountId choose the Vault/Postgres tenant principal used for auth resolution. credentialKey selects a non-default stored credential profile when present. Parameter formats and constraints: media_id (query, unknown, required); command (query, string). Expected response shape: { ok, status, data: { method, path, url, status, contentType, authType, data } } Common failure conditions: missing scoped credentials in Vault, missing required API parameters, X API auth failures, rate limits, or unsupported multipart/body shape. Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools: x_connection_info, x_schema_discovery, x_auth_get_scope_credentials, x_api_request. Safety warnings: This is read-only, but responses can still include sensitive account data depending on granted scopes. Example: {"name":"x_api_get_media_upload_status","arguments":{"scopeTenantId":"default","scopeUserId":"default"}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandNo
media_idYes
scopeUserIdNo
credentialKeyNo
scopeTenantIdNo
scopeAccountIdNo
authorizationKeyNo
preferredAuthTypeNo
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares 'Risk: read-only', details required OAuth scopes, explains environment-selection behavior, lists common failure conditions, and provides the expected response shape. This is highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections and front-loads the core purpose. However, it contains redundancy: 'Use when' repeats the first sentence, and 'Risk: read-only' overlaps with the safety warning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers all major decision-making aspects: purpose, usage conditions, permissions, auth resolution, parameter formats, expected response, failure modes, and recommended companion tools. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description partially compensates by explaining media_id, command, and the environment-selection parameters. However, it leaves authorizationKey and preferredAuthType unexplained, and the 'media_id (query, unknown, required)' format is unhelpful with 'unknown' type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get Media upload status' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from media upload lifecycle tools by focusing on status, but does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, but 'Use when' merely restates the purpose. The 'Do not use when' guidance is generic and does not compare with direct alternatives like x_api_get_media_by_media_key or x_api_media_upload. It mentions exploration tools but lacks tool-specific exclusion context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LesterAJohn/X-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server