Check the status and logs of a render or snapshot job using its job ID to track progress and diagnose issues.
Estado y log de un job (render o snapshot) por su job_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ID devuelto por render_video / snapshot_frames |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns (status and log) but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only), error handling, or what happens if the job ID is invalid. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core function and scope. There is no wasted wording, and all essential information (status, log, job type, identifier) is present.
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 simple read tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is adequate. However, it does not address when to use this over wait_job or list_jobs, and it lacks any note about return format or error cases. Given the sibling context, the description is minimally sufficient but not rich.
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 schema has 100% coverage for job_id, including its provenance (returned by render_video / snapshot_frames). The description merely repeats 'by its job_id' without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.
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 clearly states the tool returns the status and log of a specific job (render or snapshot) identified by job_id. This is a precise verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs (which lists all jobs) or wait_job (which waits for completion).
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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_job or list_jobs. The use case is implied (checking a specific job's status/log), but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative selection guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.