Skip to main content
Glama

zapcap_mcp_monitor_task

Monitor video processing task progress in the ZapCap API by tracking video and task IDs to check completion status.

Instructions

Monitor task progress

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool that implements the logic to monitor the task progress by making a GET request to the ZapCap API using the provided video_id and task_id.
    @mcp.tool(description="Monitor task progress")
    def zapcap_mcp_monitor_task(request: MonitorTask) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        headers = {"x-api-key": get_api_key()}
        
        with httpx.Client() as client:
            response = client.get(
                f"https://api.zapcap.ai/videos/{request.video_id}/task/{request.task_id}",
                headers=headers
            )
        
        response.raise_for_status()
        return response.json()
  • Pydantic BaseModel defining the input parameters for the zapcap_mcp_monitor_task tool: video_id and task_id.
    class MonitorTask(BaseModel):
        video_id: str = Field(description="Video ID")
        task_id: str = Field(description="Task ID")
  • Helper function to retrieve and validate the ZAPCAP_API_KEY from environment variables, used by the tool handler.
    def get_api_key() -> str:
        api_key = os.getenv("ZAPCAP_API_KEY")
        if not api_key:
            raise ValueError("ZAPCAP_API_KEY environment variable is required")
        return api_key
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Monitor task progress' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, how it handles errors, what the monitoring interval might be, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's apparent complexity (monitoring implies ongoing status checks), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't provide enough context about how monitoring works, what 'progress' means, or how this tool fits into the workflow with siblings like create_task.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'video_id' or 'task_id' represent, their format, or how they relate to monitoring. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Monitor task progress' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the verb 'monitor' and resource 'task progress', but doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'zapcap_mcp_create_task' or clarify what type of monitoring it performs. It's better than a tautology but remains vague about what monitoring entails.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task_id from create_task), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'zapcap_mcp_create_task'. This leaves the agent with no context for appropriate tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bogdanminko/zapcap-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server