Poll a music generation task until it finishes, then return final status and audio URLs.
Block until a task is terminal (default poll 12s, max 900s). Returns final status + audio URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ||
| timeoutSeconds | No | ||
| intervalSeconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: it blocks, polls by default every 12s, has a 900s maximum, and returns final status plus audio URLs. It does not cover timeout-after-max or error behavior, but the core operational traits are specified.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking behavior, with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, it covers action, timing, and return value, but it leaves important operational gaps: what 'terminal' statuses are allowed, what happens if the 900s max is reached, and how this relates to sibling tools like suno_poll. Overall adequate but with clear gaps.
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 description adds useful timing constraints (default 12s poll, 900s max) that map to timeoutSeconds/intervalSeconds, but it never names the parameters explicitly or explains taskId beyond what the schema's weak 'task id from any generation call' hint provides. With 0% schema description coverage, this is partial compensation.
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?
Description states a specific action ('Block until a task is terminal') and names the output, so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes this from suno_poll, a likely sibling alternative, so an agent must infer the difference.
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 the tool is for waiting on an existing task, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus suno_poll or other task-related tools, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.