Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

回写任务状态和结果

pavo_sync_task_result
Idempotent

Locate the exact project and node from a saved submission receipt, query task status or artifacts, and write results back without overwriting later changes; use a new operation_id after status change.

Instructions

从本地已保存的生成提交回执定位准确项目和节点，查询并回写状态或成功产物；禁止覆盖后来修改的参数或其他任务。轮询状态变化后需要新的回写operation_id。

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": {
      "submission_operation_id": "<submission_operation_id>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_sync_task_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operation_idYes
submission_operation_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this tool writes results back only to the project and node identified by the receipt, and it must not overwrite parameters that were modified later or affect other tasks. This also clarifies the scope of the write.

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?

It is two tight sentences with the prerequisite, action, and safety constraint front-loaded, and no restatement of the name or title. The final clause about operation_id is compressed to the point of being hard to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description still leaves a few points unclear for a mutating, open-world tool: what exactly gets written back, whether node assets are created, and how to obtain a fresh operation_id.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It ties submission_operation_id to the 'locally saved generation submission receipt' and operation_id to the 'write-back operation_id' that is needed again after a status change, but the mapping is only implicit and the meaning of a 'new' operation_id after a polling change remains ambiguous.

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?

The description states a specific action pair: locate the exact project and node from a locally saved submission receipt, then query and write back the status or successful artifacts. This clearly separates the tool from read-only siblings such as pavo_get_task or pavo_get_operation, although it never names those siblings directly.

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: you need a locally saved submission receipt before calling this tool and you may call it again after a status change, in which case you need a new write-back operation_id. It does not say explicitly when to choose this tool over pavo_get_task, pavo_get_operation, or pavo_download_task_results.

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