Check the status and result of a text-to-texture task via the /v1/retexture API, so you can monitor progress and collect generated textures when ready.
Retrieve the status and result of a text-to-texture task. Uses the /v1/retexture API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only call, what happens while the task is still running, whether result is null until completion, or whether errors surface as HTTP failures. It only repeats the operational semantics implied by 'retrieve'.
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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing API-path sentence adds little and mildly muddies the identity of the tool, but overall it is tight.
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 polling endpoint with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain response shape (status/result fields) and completion states. It says only 'status and result', leaving the agent unable to know what to expect or how to interpret an incomplete task.
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 single parameter task_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it—no format, origin, or lifetime. An agent must guess that it is the identifier returned by the create endpoint.
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?
States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (text-to-texture task) with scope covering status and result, which an agent can grasp immediately. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling retrieve_retexture_task, and the '/v1/retexture API' note blurs rather than sharpens that distinction.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus retrieve_retexture_task, retrieve_text_to_3d_task, or the stream/list variants, and no mention that the task_id must come from create_text_to_texture_task. Usage is only inferable from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.