Check the status of a Seedance video generation task by task_id, optionally wait and save the MP4, to get the video URL and real cost.
Status of a video task. When it has succeeded: video_url, real cost, saved file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No | Block until the task finishes | |
| save_to | No | File or folder to save the mp4 | |
| task_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_s | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses success outputs (video_url, real cost, saved file) but omits whether the operation is read-only, that save_to causes a file write side effect, how wait/blocking behaves, and what happens on failure or timeout.
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?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The second sentence is telegraphic but still earns its place by summarizing successful outcomes.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in depth. However, with no annotations, the description leaves important behavioral context unstated—such as read-only nature, save_to side effects, blocking behavior, and error handling—making it minimally adequate for a status tool with a wait parameter.
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 50%, with task_id and timeout_s undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond hinting at 'saved file' (already covered by the save_to schema description), and does not compensate for the missing semantics of task_id or timeout_s.
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 states a clear verb+resource: retrieving the status of a specific video task. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_video_tasks (plural) and generate_video (creation) by referring to a singular 'a video task', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_video_tasks or generate_video. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and required task_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.