get_taskCheck the status of a submitted image or video generation task and retrieve the media URL when the task finishes.
Poll a run submitted earlier and return its status and media URL when it is ready.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No | Keep polling until it finishes (default false). | |
| task_id | Yes | The task id returned by generate_image, edit_image or generate_video. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool polls and returns when ready, indicating a potential blocking behavior. It does not mention error handling, side effects, or safety profile, but 'poll' suggests a read-only operation, offering some transparency.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('poll') and resource ('run'), and includes the key return values. Zero wasted words.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly states what is returned ('status and media URL'). It covers the essential need for an agent to use the tool. Minor gaps include no mention of timeout behavior or error conditions, but for a simple polling tool it is sufficiently complete.
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%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning for the parameters; it only describes the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't compensate beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('run'), and states the output ('status and media URL'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling generation tools (generate_image, generate_video) by focusing on checking an existing task rather than creating one.
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 'a run submitted earlier' implies it is used after generate_image or generate_video, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though sibling names make the distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.