Retrieve render job status, progress, and completion state to track export progress.
Get the status of all render jobs.
Returns JSON with each job's status, progress percentage, and completion state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with status, progress, completion state) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-blocking, nor does it mention error conditions or dependencies on prior render initiation. The 'Get' verb implies safety, but it is not explicitly stated.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous words. It is highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
The tool is simple, has no parameters, and has an output schema that likely details the return structure. The description covers the purpose and key fields, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It lacks mention of any prerequisites or when to use it in a workflow, but that is minor for a getter with an output schema.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description needs to add no parameter meaning. According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema details.
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 clearly states the action ('Get the status') and the resource ('all render jobs'), distinguishing it from siblings like resolve_get_status (general status) and resolve_wait_for_render (blocking wait). It is specific and unambiguous.
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 description implies usage for checking render status but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as resolve_wait_for_render or resolve_get_status. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.