Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a Luma video modification task by passing its task ID to check progress.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a luma 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: -falsev0.1.7Input 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."v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose read semantics and that the payload returned is the 'latest result', implying results may not exist yet. But it omits auth requirements, whether repeated calls are safe, and how status values should be interpreted.
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 that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. Nothing redundant or padded.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what the returned status/result payload looks like or when polling should stop. For a status-polling tool it leaves the workflow and return shape underspecified.
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 parameters (task_id, action) are already documented in the schema, including the enum and its default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 (luma task status + latest result payload), which is unambiguous. However it does not differentiate itself from any sibling — the siblings (login, modify_video, check_pricing) don't overlap, so there is nothing to contrast against, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 is given: nothing says this is the polling tool to call after modify_video returns a task id, nor whether it should be called once or repeatedly until a terminal state. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.