Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
>sdcraft-mcp

>sdcraft-mcp

by TimkoNZT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_job

Polls an asynchronous image-generation job for status, progress, or result, optionally waiting up to 30 seconds and saving the PNG upon completion; does not start the server.

Instructions

Job status/progress/result (waits <= ~30s). Saves the PNG on completion. Does NOT start the server.

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": "get_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes
wait_secondsNoSeconds to wait (0..30, default 0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a ~30s wait cap, that the PNG is saved on completion, and that it does not start the server. However, it omits permissions, repeated-call behavior, error/incomplete-job behavior, and the shape of the returned result.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the wait constraint and the server-start exclusion. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough to call the tool with a job_id and understand the wait limit and PNG side effect. It still leaves gaps around result format, save location, and behavior when the job is not complete within the wait window.

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 only 50%: wait_seconds is well documented in the schema, but job_id has no explanation. The description reinforces the wait semantics with 'waits <= ~30s' and adds the PNG-saving side effect, but it does not explain job_id beyond its name.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource purpose: retrieve a job's status, progress, or result. It also distinguishes itself from server-starting siblings with 'Does NOT start the server,' though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_jobs or cancel_job.

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 implied: call this to check a specific job_id, with a short wait window. The 'Does NOT start the server' line gives one exclusion, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use list_jobs instead, how to poll, or when cancellation is appropriate.

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