Skip to main content
Glama

Check a job

video_job
Read-only

Check a video processing job's status, stage, and progress, optionally waiting up to 300 seconds for completion with streamed progress updates.

Instructions

A job's status, stage and progress, optionally waiting for it to finish. Progress is also streamed as MCP progress notifications while waiting.

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": "video_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesJob id from video_ingest, video_ingest_batch or video_download.
wait_secondsNoSeconds to wait for completion before returning the job.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesWhat the job does.
nextNoThe call to make to keep waiting, while the job is unfinished.
errorNo'code: message — hint' when the job failed.
stageYesCurrent step: queued, download, transcribe, frames, embed or done.
job_idYesPass to video_job to poll, or video_cancel to stop.
resultNoWhen succeeded: the ingest report (video_id, counts, stages, embedding tokens, elapsed seconds) or the download report (path, codecs, size, whether audio was merged).
sourceYesThe URL or path being processed.
statusYes`interrupted` means the server restarted mid-job; ingest again to resume.
messageYesLatest human-readable progress line.
progressYesOverall completion from 0 to 1, weighted by how long each stage usually takes.
video_idNoKnown once the source has been resolved; use it with every other tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

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 and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: waiting is optional and progress is streamed as MCP progress notifications during the wait. It does not cover failure/terminal-state reporting or that the wait is bounded (the 300s cap lives only in the schema).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the optional wait behavior; nothing is padded. The opening possessive construction ("A job's status...") is slightly clipped but costs no clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details need not be described, and the schema carries parameter semantics. For a two-parameter read-only polling tool, the description covers purpose, waiting and notification behavior adequately, with only the bounds and terminal-state semantics left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the wait_seconds range and the job_id provenance. The description adds only the framing that waiting is optional, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 the resource (a job) and what it returns: status, stage and progress, plus the optional waiting behavior. It is clear enough to distinguish a per-job status check from list-style siblings, but it never explicitly names when to prefer it over video_status or video_jobs.

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 rather than stated: the job_id description ties it to video_ingest, video_ingest_batch and video_download, so an agent can infer it is the follow-up call after starting work. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with the same-family status/list alternatives.

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