Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
3dBlock Studio

3dBlock Studio

by TheGivingCircuits
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

job_status

Read-only

Check the progress of a 3D render job and retrieve its outputs: contact sheets for finished stills, or file, thumbnail, and QC for finished takes.

Instructions

Progress of a render job. A finished stills job returns its contact sheet; a finished take returns its file, thumbnail and QC.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral content by disclosing conditional return payloads (contact sheet for finished stills vs. file, thumbnail and QC for takes). It omits what an in-progress or failed job returns, which is the remaining gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the conditional outcome detail. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the success payloads per job type but leaves out the in-progress state, error behavior for an unknown job_id, and the source of the ID. Adequate but not complete for an agent driving a render pipeline.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only implicitly identifies the single job_id as "a render job" without stating format or where to obtain the ID. It provides minimal compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: reporting "Progress of a render job", which is clearly distinct from list_jobs (enumeration) and qc_take/render_take (actions). It further clarifies the tool distinguishes job kinds by outcome, though it never names the sibling it replaces.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to poll a render job's state. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. list_jobs, no statement that job_id comes from render_stills/render_take, and no guidance on polling cadence or behavior after completion.

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