Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MathMind MCP Server

MathMind MCP Server

by Runninghcm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

imgPipTaskFetchbyReqID

Query a video picture-in-picture task by req_id to retrieve its result. Returns the JSON response from the API.

Instructions

根据用户输入的req_id来查询 视频中添加画中画功能的任务结果。 将接口返回的JSON内容输出即可

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "req_id": "<req_id>"
    },
    "name": "imgPipTaskFetchbyReqID"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
req_idYesimgPip 视频画中画任务返回的req_id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.16

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output behavior (output the JSON returned by the interface) and implies a read-only query operation. It does not explain what happens if the task is still running, fails, or the req_id is invalid, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and input, and the second gives a direct output instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a low-complexity tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what to query, which input to use, and what to return. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention task lifecycle states or alternative tools, but it is sufficiently actionable.

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 100%, so the schema already explains that req_id is the ID returned by the imgPip PIP task. The description only repeats this relationship without adding format, syntax, or additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (the result of adding picture-in-picture to a video), and ties it to the req_id input. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the similar sibling taskFetchByTraceID, so it stops 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?

The description implies the usage context: when a user provides a req_id, query the corresponding task result. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like taskFetchByTraceID, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond having the req_id.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools