Check the status of an async generation and retrieve its result URL. Returns processing, completed, or failed states to determine if polling should continue.
Cek status & hasil sebuah generation (untuk polling hasil async). Status: processing | completed | failed. Hasil ada di field resultUrl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| generation_id | Yes | ID generation dari response generate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior information by enumerating the possible statuses ('processing | completed | failed') and revealing that the result is in the 'resultUrl' field. However, it does not describe response shape nuances, polling semantics, or what happens on failure beyond the status value.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the status values and result field. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema.
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?
For a simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential details: purpose, statuses, and where to find the result. It could be slightly more complete by noting what the endpoint returns immediately or how to interpret failures, but the core context is fully present.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that generation_id comes from the generate response. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it correctly relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Cek status & hasil') and a clear resource ('sebuah generation'), and explicitly frames the tool as a polling mechanism for async results. This distinguishes it from generation and listing tools like generate_image and list_generations.
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?
The phrase 'untuk polling hasil async' clearly indicates when to use the tool: after submitting an asynchronous generation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.