svipall

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

captcha_status

Read-only

Check a captcha task by its taskId to see whether it is solved, processing, or failed, and retrieve the token or text once complete.

Instructions

Check a captcha task by its taskId, as returned by solve_turnstile, solve_recaptcha_v2, solve_hcaptcha or solve_image_captcha. Returns status solved, processing or failed, with the token or text once solved.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "captcha_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	Yes	The `taskId` a solve_* tool returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real value by disclosing the possible status values (solved, processing, failed) and what the successful result contains (token or text). It doesn't mention polling behavior or timing expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with no waste; the identifying resource and the linking constraint come first, followed by the return-value detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so adequately by naming the status values and the token/text payload. The only gap is polling/timing behavior for an async task checker.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the taskId parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the origin of taskId (returned by solve_* tools), which adds marginal meaning but not new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb (Check) plus resource (captcha task by taskId) and explicitly ties itself to the solve_* family of sibling tools. An agent can immediately distinguish this as the status-query counterpart to the solve tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly establishes context: use this to check a task produced by solve_turnstile, solve_recaptcha_v2, solve_hcaptcha, or solve_image_captcha. No explicit when-not-to-use or polling-interval guidance is provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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