Retrieve a submitted task's result by its trace ID to check processing status and access generated output.
根据用户已经提交过的任务 traceId 查询提交的任务结果
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "taskFetchByTraceID"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| traceId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is a read-only lookup scoped to tasks '已经提交过' (already submitted), which is useful, but it does not disclose return structure, possible errors, latency, or whether the result is complete or partial.
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 entire description is one focused sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and key parameter are all mentioned in a front-loaded manner.
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 has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the returned 'task result' contains. It also lacks usage conditions and doesn't clarify the relationship with imgPipTaskFetchbyReqID, so an agent is missing important context for calling it correctly.
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 coverage is 0% and traceId has no description beyond its title. The description does add meaning by identifying traceId as the identifier of a user-submitted task, but it does not explain the traceId format, how to obtain it, or why the schema marks it as not required.
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 clear action and resource: '查询提交的任务结果' (query submitted task result) keyed by traceId. This distinguishes it from generation tools like imgs2video, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling imgPipTaskFetchbyReqID, which appears to be a similar fetch-by-request-ID tool.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially imgPipTaskFetchbyReqID. The description only says it queries by traceId; it never states when a traceId is preferred over a reqID or when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.