Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a Flux Kontext text-to-image task using its task ID.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a flux-kontext task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on. Defaults to the line's only asynchronous endpoint. | |
| task_id | Yes | Task id returned when the task was created. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.11Input schema / properties / action / descriptionPrevious value: -"Endpoint the task was created on. Defaults to the line's only endpoint."New value: +"Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on. Defaults to the line's only asynchronous endpoint."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not disclose idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, polling expectations, possible task states, or error behavior.
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?
The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core retrieval purpose directly and efficiently.
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 retrieval tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but with no annotations or output schema it omits important context such as return shape, asynchronous status semantics, and polling or retry guidance.
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 schema has 100% description coverage, so both parameters are already explained in structured form. The description adds no additional syntax, defaults, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.
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 verb and resource: fetching current status and latest result payload for a flux-kontext task. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like text_to_image, but it does not explicitly mention siblings or scope boundaries.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or how it should be used in a polling workflow after task creation. The description only states what it fetches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.