Check a document render's status, totals, download URL, and failure details by render ID. Poll it after an asynchronous render to know when the file is ready to download.
One render: its status, its totals, and how to download it.
download_url and expires_at are null until the render is completed,
and a failed render carries a failure explaining why. Poll this after an
asynchronous render.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| render_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the state machine: download_url and expires_at are null until status is completed, and a failed render carries a failure reason. It says nothing about auth, error behavior on an unknown render_id, or polling rate limits, but the conditional field semantics are the key behavioral trait an agent needs.
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 lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the state-dependent caveat and the lifecycle hint. Nothing is padding and the ordering matches how an agent would reason about the call.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must sketch the return shape, and it does so by naming status, totals, download_url, expires_at, and failure. The contents of 'totals' and the URL's usage (e.g., expiry-limited direct download) remain unspecified, which is a minor but real gap.
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% for the single required render_id, and the description never explains it — notably it does not say the ID comes from the document_render call. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, so this is a modest gap rather than a blocker.
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 the resource ('one render') and enumerates what it returns: status, totals, and download information. This implicitly separates it from siblings like document_download_render (which fetches bytes) and document_render (which creates), though it never names them explicitly.
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?
'Poll this after an asynchronous render' gives a clear triggering condition and lifecycle position. It stops short of naming the alternatives (document_download_render, document_render_stored) or saying when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.