Fetch the current status and result payload of an asynchronous grok-imagine task by providing its task ID and endpoint action.
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.
v0.1.13Input 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. 'Fetch' signals a non-mutating read operation, and the described return content makes the tool's behavior reasonably transparent. It does not discuss authentication or polling details, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the verb, resource, and product context efficiently, and every word contributes useful information.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description names the two key return concepts: current status and latest result payload. Together with the schema's full parameter documentation, this is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it does not describe possible status values or payload structure.
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 the schema already fully documents task_id and action. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond referring to the task itself, so the baseline score of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names a precise resource ('current status and latest result payload for a grok-imagine task'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling creation tools, so an agent can identify it as the task-status lookup tool without opening the schema.
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?
The description clearly establishes the retrieval context: use this when you need the current status or result payload of an existing grok-imagine task. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling set makes the distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.