Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

generation_status

Read-only

Check the status of a 3D model generation job with its job ID and provider, so you can track progress and know when the model is ready.

Instructions

Check the status of a model generation job.

        Args:
            job_id: Job ID returned by ``generate_model``.
            provider: Provider that owns the job: ``"meshy"``, ``"gemini"``,
                ``"tripo3d"``, ``"stability"`` or ``"openscad"``.  Default
                ``"meshy"``.

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": "generation_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesJob ID returned by ``generate_model``.
providerNoProvider that owns the job: ``"meshy"``, ``"gemini"``, ``"tripo3d"``, ``"stability"`` or ``"openscad"``. Default ``"meshy"``. Default: "meshy".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / job_id / description
      Added value: +"Job ID returned by ``generate_model``."
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"meshy\"."New value: +"Provider that owns the job: ``\"meshy\"``, ``\"gemini\"``, ``\"tripo3d\"``, ``\"stability\"`` or ``\"openscad\"``.  Default ``\"meshy\"``. Default: \"meshy\"."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / provider / default
      Removed value: -"meshy"
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Added value: +"Default: \"meshy\"."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance context (job_id originates from generate_model) and the provider enumeration, but says nothing about what status values come back, whether the job may still be queued, or whether repeated polling is expected — a notable omission for a status tool with no output schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing 'Args:' block duplicates the input schema almost word for word, adding length without adding information. Trimming the redundant parameter repetition would leave a tighter, better-structured definition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read operation the description covers the essentials, but with no output schema the definition should at least hint at the shape of a status response (state names, progress, failure indicators). That gap is the main thing an agent would still need to learn by trial.

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, and the description's Args block largely restates the schema verbatim, including the identical provider list and default. No additional meaning such as provider-specific behavior or mismatch consequences is added.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a model generation job,' which is clearly distinct from generation tools like generate_model or download_generated_model. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as await_generation, job_status, or fleet_job_status, leaving the agent to guess which status-checking tool applies.

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 only implied: naming job_id as 'returned by generate_model' suggests this is the follow-up step after a generation call. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of polling cadence, and no pointer to await_generation as the blocking alternative, which is the obvious competing choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools