Retrieve completed watermark embedding or detection results by request ID; returns a pending 202 if unfinished. Embedding needs output_path; detection returns JSON, and results expire in 24 hours.
Collect a job result, or return a pending 202 receipt. Embedding requires output_path; detection returns JSON. Does not poll. Results expire after 24 hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| output_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: a pending 202 receipt is possible instead of a result, results expire after 24 hours, and embedding demands output_path. It never explains why 'collect' is flagged non-read-only (consumption of the result), leaving a minor gap.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the pending-receipt branch, then constraints, then expiry. Nothing is padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does at a high level (JSON for detection, a 202 receipt when pending). Richer return-shape detail is absent, but for a 3-parameter tool the coverage is adequate.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it explains the operation enum's two branches and the conditional requirement of output_path for embedding. request_id semantics are left to the pattern in the schema, but that is self-evident.
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 specific verb and resource ('Collect a job result') and clarifies the dual outcome (result vs pending 202 receipt), which separates it from get_job, the sibling that presumably reports job status. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
It gives real usage constraints: 'Does not poll' tells the agent this is not the tool for waiting on a job, and the operation-specific notes ('Embedding requires output_path; detection returns JSON') guide invocation. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing to get_job, which keeps it out of the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.