Check the status, progress, and output files of a specific task or a node's most recent task. Call only when the user asks about progress, not for repeated polling.
查某个任务，或某个节点最近一次任务的状态、进度和输出文件。只在用户问进度时调用，不要反复轮询。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | 节点名或节点 ID；给了就查这个节点最近一次任务 | |
| project | Yes | 项目名称或项目 ID（用 list_projects 查） | |
| task_id | No | 任务 ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraints that it should not be polled repeatedly and that it returns output files, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or behavior when a task does not 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?
Two short sentences, front-loading the scope statement before the usage restriction. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey scope and usage, which it does. The one gap is the interaction/precedence between task_id and node when both are provided.
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 100% and the node parameter already documents the 'latest task for this node' behavior, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax, format, or precedence rules (e.g., what happens if both task_id and node are supplied).
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 and resource ('查某个任务/某个节点最近一次任务'), and clarifies that it returns status, progress, and output files. It covers both the task_id and node invocation modes. It does not explicitly name a sibling like canvas_status to disambiguate, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Gives a clear trigger condition ('只在用户问进度时调用') plus an explicit anti-pattern ('不要反复轮询'), which is a genuinely useful usage constraint. It does not name an alternative tool for cases where progress polling is needed, so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.