get_render_statusCheck the status of photorealistic render jobs. Retrieve a specific job or all jobs, and optionally include the finished image to verify the result.
Poll photorealistic render jobs. Omit job_id for all jobs. Set include_image=true to get the finished PNG base64-encoded so you can visually verify the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | Job from start_render | |
| include_image | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real behavior beyond annotations: omitting job_id lists all jobs, and include_image=true returns a base64-encoded PNG. It leaves status payload details to inference, but this is a minor gap given annotation coverage.
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 carry purpose and both parameter behaviors without wasted words. The front-loaded verb 'Poll' followed by conditional usage is easy for an agent to parse and act on.
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 two-parameter read-only status poller, the description covers invocation, all-jobs behavior, and the image result. A complete picture of the status return payload or failure modes is absent, but the tool's purpose and annotations make the remaining ambiguity acceptable.
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?
With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description compensates by adding meaning to both parameters: job_id is optional for all jobs, and include_image controls PNG retrieval. The schema alone only gives 'Job from start_render' and a default false, so the description adds necessary semantics.
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 names a specific action ('Poll photorealistic render jobs') and a clear resource, immediately telling an agent what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from render-creation siblings like start_render by focusing on status retrieval.
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?
It gives actionable context: omit job_id to query all jobs and set include_image=true to receive a finished PNG for visual verification. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the polling context and sibling start_render make the workflow clear enough for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.