Check download progress by ID to monitor a single task, or omit the ID to list progress for all tasks in the queue.
查询下载进度。给定 id 查单个，不给则返回全部任务。
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": "download_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key scope behavior (id returns one task, no id returns all tasks), but says nothing about progress fields, permissions, or how unknown ids behave.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the id condition immediately following. No wasted text.
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?
This is a simple read tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return shape (task/progress fields) and edge cases. It only defines single-versus-all scope.
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?
The single optional id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description fully explains its semantics: provide id to query one task, omit it to return all tasks. It does not specify the id format, but otherwise compensates well.
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?
States the specific verb (查询, "query") and resource (下载进度, "download progress"). It also explains the optional-id behavior, but does not distinguish this tool from sibling list_downloads.
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?
Implies when to call it with an id versus without one. However, it does not name alternatives such as list_downloads or wait_download, so the agent must infer the boundary between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.