PicoBerry MCP Server

get_asset

Retrieve a generation's status and output. If successful, obtain temporary signed URLs for the generated files; otherwise, get error details.

Instructions

Get a generation's status + result. taskStatus: 0=pending 1=processing 2=succeeded 3=failed. When succeeded, files.{model,image,thumbnail,textures} hold signed result URLs (short TTL — download promptly). On failure, read errorDetail.

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": {
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses status codes, result URL structure (signed, short TTL), and failure handling via errorDetail. This provides useful behavioral context, though it could be enhanced with rate limits or authentication requirements.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential details on status codes and result handling. No extraneous content.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: status retrieval, result URLs, and error handling. It is fairly complete for a simple status checker, though it omits details about pagination or response format.

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?

The schema has only one parameter (asset_id) with no description, so the description must clarify its meaning. It does so by stating the tool gets a generation's status, implying asset_id is the generation identifier. However, it does not specify format or required usage beyond the schema's 'required' flag.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a generation's status and result, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource 'generation'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'wait_for_asset' (which blocks) and 'download_asset' (which downloads) by focusing on status and result retrieval.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wait_for_asset or download_asset. It does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Only implied usage from the description.

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

Deploy Server