Retrieve the current status and latest result payload for a Gemini TTS task by its task ID, so you can poll an asynchronous text-to-speech request until audio is ready.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a gemini-tts 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.
v0.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does convey that this is a non-blocking snapshot read ('current status', 'latest result payload'), implying partial results before completion, but omits failure/error states, task retention, and whether repeated calls are idempotent.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting usage and behavioral detail rather than from tight editing of included content.
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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description says enough: what it returns (status plus latest result payload) and for which task. Only the pending/failed-state behavior is left unstated, a minor gap.
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%, so both task_id and action are already documented, including the enum and its default behavior. The description adds no syntax, format, or cross-parameter guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Fetch') plus resource ('current status and latest result payload') scoped to a named service ('gemini-tts task'). An agent can tell this apart from text_to_speech (which creates tasks) without opening the schema, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no polling cadence, no indication of what to do if the task is still running versus failed. The usage (poll after creating a task via text_to_speech) is only inferable from the tool name and sibling list, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.