Reads cached animation stages, failures, pending calibration, and review requirements to track Blender companion jobs and identify what needs attention before export.
Read cached stages, failures, pending calibration and review requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at read-only cached data, but says nothing about cache staleness, whether it triggers recalculation, permission requirements, or what the returned structure looks like for a status tool.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. However, the terseness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy, so it is only adequate.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description does not supply enough for an agent to call this tool correctly. Essential context about the 'config' argument and the status response is missing.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'config' parameter, and the description says nothing about it. The agent cannot tell whether 'config' is a path, an identifier, or an inline config object, so the gap is not compensated.
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 names what is read (cached stages, failures, calibration, review requirements) which implies a pipeline-status read, but it never states the tool's purpose in a verb+resource form like 'Return pipeline status'. It is distinguishable from pipeline_run or record_review by its read framing, but only loosely.
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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of how it differs from siblings such as job_status or diagnose_stage, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the polling/status check tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.