Check the status of an image generation or editing job by providing its job ID, so you can determine if it is done without waiting.
Peek at a job returned by generate_image/edit_image without waiting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys read-only character via 'peek' and non-blocking behavior via 'without waiting.' However, it does not disclose error behavior, repeated-call safety, or whether any side effects occur; these are not fully covered elsewhere since no annotations exist.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The key action and behavioral distinction ('without waiting') are front-loaded, and the source of the job_id is stated efficiently. No wasted words.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly adequate. It gives the parameter source and the non-waiting behavior, while the output schema likely covers return values. It omits error handling and alternative routing, but these are less critical given the sibling tools and simplicity.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying the provenance of job_id – it is the identifier returned by generate_image/edit_image – which is contextual meaning the schema lacks. It does not describe format or constraints, but for a single required parameter this is valuable guidance.
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 uses a specific verb ('peek') and a clear resource ('a job returned by generate_image/edit_image'), immediately conveying that this tool checks job status. The phrase 'without waiting' effectively distinguishes it from siblings like wait_for_job and fetch_result.
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 gives clear context by stating the tool is for peeking without waiting, implying it is the non-blocking counterpart to wait_for_job. It also establishes that the job must have been created by generate_image or edit_image. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but the primary usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.