Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a grok-imagine task using its task ID and action, so you can poll asynchronous image or video generation jobs and retrieve outputs.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a grok-imagine task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on. | |
| task_id | Yes | Task id returned when the task was created. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.13Input schema / properties / action / enumPrevious value: -[
- "edit_image",
- "extend_video",
- "image_to_video",
- "text_to_image",
- "text_to_video",
- "upscale_image"
-]New value: +[
+ "edit_image",
+ "extend_video",
+ "image_to_video",
+ "segment_map",
+ "text_to_image",
+ "text_to_video",
+ "upscale_image"
+]v0.1.11Input schema / properties / action / descriptionPrevious value: -"Endpoint the task was created on."New value: +"Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content (status and latest result payload), which is useful, but says nothing about pending/failed task states, polling cadence, auth, or rate limits.
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; the resource and returned fields are stated immediately.
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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It falls short on lifecycle context (polling behavior, terminal states) that an agent needs to use it correctly in the async workflow.
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% – both task_id and the action enum are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g. that action must match the endpoint the task was created on), so 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?
States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (current status + latest result payload for a task), which clearly separates it from the sibling creation endpoints like text_to_image or extend_video. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention that this is the polling companion to the async creation tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The polling intent is only loosely implied by 'current status'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.