agent-video-engine

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

job_get

Read-only

Check video editing job progress, retrieve result paths, and surface actionable errors; optionally return completed stills and color comparisons as preview images.

Instructions

Read job progress, result paths or actionable errors. Completed stills and color comparisons can be returned as images.

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": {
      "projectDir": "<projectDir>",
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "job_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`jobId`	Yes
`projectDir`	Yes	Absolute path of the local video project directory
`includePreview`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Read-only annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description earns credit for adding behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that completed stills and color comparisons are returned as images and that errors surface as 'actionable' output. It stops short of describing polling or blocking behavior for in-progress jobs.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The return-format note is placed well but is slightly vague about when images are actually emitted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information, and it partially does (result paths, errors, images). However it leaves includePreview and the semantics of querying an unfinished job unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a job-status tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%; projectDir is documented in the schema but jobId and includePreview are undocumented in both places. The description never mentions includePreview or connects the image-return behavior to toggling it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Read job progress, result paths or actionable errors.' This is clearly distinct from job_list, job_cancel, and job_retry by name and intent, though it never explicitly says so.

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 by the phrase 'job progress, result paths or actionable errors' 32 no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion versus job_list or job_retry, and no indication of whether polling a running job is the intended pattern.

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