Query an asynchronous media task by ID to monitor status and retrieve results; pending or running means not complete, and UNKNOWN may indicate expiration.
Query an upstream task using the same API Key. Keep polling explicitly at intervals; pending/running is not generation success. UNKNOWN may mean the task expired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a fair job: it discloses that the call must use the same API Key as the originating request, that responses can be intermediate (pending/running) versus terminal, and that UNKNOWN likely means expiry. It omits error/auth failure behavior and whether results are cached, so not a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Slight cost in terseness: the first sentence is clipped and could more plainly say it fetches task status.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the lifecycle notes cover a lot. Still missing the provenance of task_id and any explicit relationship to the generating sibling tool, leaving an agent to guess how to obtain the identifier.
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% and the sole required parameter task_id has no title beyond 'Task Id'. The description never explains where task_id comes from or its format, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: query an upstream task. The mention of polling and generation success makes the intent (status retrieval for an async job) inferable, and no sibling tool covers task lookups. It never literally says it returns task status, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Gives operational guidance ('keep polling explicitly at intervals', 'pending/running is not generation success', 'UNKNOWN may mean the task expired') that implies use after submitting a generation request. However it never names which sibling produces the task or when not to call it, so the when-to-use signal is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.