Meshy MCP Server

Official

by meshy-dev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Get Task Status

meshy_get_task_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Wait for a Meshy task to finish or check its current status, and report the actual task type needed for download or cancel calls.

Instructions

Wait for a task to finish (wait=true, default) or check it once (wait=false). Reports the task's real task_type; pass it to the download and cancel tools.

wait=true polls at the API's suggested interval (else 5s→30s backoff) until SUCCEEDED / FAILED / CANCELED or timeout_seconds runs out; a failed status check (timeout, 429, 5xx) is retried at the next poll. Running out of time returns outcome "TIMEOUT": the task keeps running on Meshy — call again with the same task_id (Meshy advises allowing up to 60 minutes from creation).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wait`	No	true (default): poll until it finishes; false: return the current status.
`task_id`	Yes	Task ID
`task_type`	No	Optional: if omitted or wrong, the server finds the task and reports its real type.
`response_format`	No	markdown (default) or json	markdown
`timeout_seconds`	No	Max wait for this call when wait=true; the task keeps running after it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	No	Rigging, animation and text-to-motion file URLs
`status`	Yes
`outcome`	Yes	Outcome of this call; TIMEOUT means the wait ended, not the task
`task_id`	Yes
`progress`	Yes	0–100
`task_type`	No	The task's actual type (pass it as task_type to the download and cancel tools)
`error_code`	No	e.g. image_too_complex
`error_type`	No	Failure category if the task failed: invalid_input (fix the input), timeout / service_unavailable / server_error (refunded; create it again)
`face_count`	No
`image_urls`	No
`model_urls`	No
`part_count`	No	Auto Split: number of parts
`poll_count`	No
`printability`	No	print-analyze result: status, issue counts, metrics, thin walls
`vertex_count`	No
`error_doc_url`	No	Resolution guide for error_code
`error_message`	No
`thumbnail_url`	No
`prompt_ignored`	No	Auto Split: the prompt was unreadable, so the cuts were chosen automatically
`consumed_credits`	No	Credits consumed by the task (0 for FAILED — credits are refunded on failure)
`wait_time_seconds`	No
`alpha_thumbnail_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.4Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: polling at the API's suggested interval with 5s→30s backoff, retry of failed status checks (timeout, 429, 5xx) at the next poll, the TIMEOUT outcome, and the fact that the task keeps running server-side with Meshy advising up to 60 minutes. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two dense paragraphs, front-loaded with the wait=true/false distinction before the polling mechanics. Every sentence carries operational information, though the polling detail is fairly heavy for a definition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return-format details are unnecessary, and the description still covers the mode switch, polling/timeout semantics, and the recommended follow-up tools. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by clarifying that task_type is advisory only (if omitted or wrong the server finds the real type), and that timeout_seconds bounds only this call, not the underlying task. It adds real meaning about parameter behavior rather than restating the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — wait for / check a task's status — and immediately distinguishes the two modes (wait=true default vs wait=false single check). It also notes it reports the real task_type, which separates it from siblings like meshy_list_tasks and meshy_cancel_task.

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 gives clear conditions for each mode (poll until finish vs one-shot check) and routes the agent onward by telling it to pass the returned task_type to the download and cancel tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with meshy_list_tasks for bulk status inspection, so the alternative-selection guidance is not fully closed.

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