get_image_jobRetrieves the status and results of an image generation job by job_id, optionally waiting a bounded time, and returns saved image paths, dimensions, previews, or failure details.
按 job_id 查询或有界等待。完成时返回真实图片路径/尺寸及标准 MCP 图片块；失败绝不冒报成功。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| wait_seconds | No | 最多等待秒数，默认20，避免频繁空转查询 | |
| include_preview | No | true 强制预览，false 禁止预览；不填则首次完成查询预览 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real value: on completion it returns actual image paths/dimensions plus a standard MCP image block, and it explicitly guarantees failures are never reported as success. It stops short of describing the still-pending outcome after wait_seconds elapses.
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 tight clauses separated by a semicolon, with the lookup/wait behavior front-loaded and the return/failure contract second. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so for the success and failure cases (paths, dimensions, image block, no false success). The notable omission is what is returned when the job is still pending after the bounded wait, which is the central ambiguity for a polling tool.
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 coverage is 67% and the two documented params (wait_seconds, include_preview) already carry good inline descriptions. The tool description only restates the job_id lookup and the bounded wait, adding no format or default detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 fits.
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 states a specific verb+resource pair ('按 job_id 查询或有界等待' on an image job) and makes clear this is the retrieval step, implicitly distinct from generate/cancel siblings. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the agent's inference.
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?
'有界等待' signals that polling with a bounded wait is the intended pattern, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus generate_gpt_image or cancel_image_job, nor when to re-poll after a pending result. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.