Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a HappyHorse video task using its task ID and creation action (edit, image-to-video, or text-to-video).
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a happyhorse 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: -falsev0.1.7Input 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, and it only partially does so. It implies a safe read and identifies the return content (status plus latest payload), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, behavior for unknown/completed/failed task ids, or whether repeated calls are safe.
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 tight sentence with the key return content front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded and nothing essential is buried.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required params, no nesting), but with no annotations and no output schema the description should explain the returned status/result shape and error cases for stale or invalid ids. It gestures at the payload but does not complete the picture an agent needs to poll reliably.
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 the action enum are already documented in the schema, including the note that action is the async endpoint used at creation. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-constraint detail beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource (task status and latest result payload), which is unambiguous against siblings like edit_video or check_pricing. However, it never names or contrasts with a sibling tool, so it stops short of the 5-level differentiation.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance: it doesn't say this is for polling an asynchronously created task, when to call it repeatedly, or when not to call it. The polling context must be inferred from "current status."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.