Check whether an asynchronous Qwen 2 image generation or editing task has completed and retrieve its latest result by task ID and action.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a qwen-2 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."Input schema / properties / action / enumPrevious value: -[
- "edit_image",
- "remix_image",
- "text_to_image"
-]New value: +[
+ "edit_image",
+ "text_to_image"
+]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 usefully frames the operation as a read returning 'current status' and 'latest result payload', hinting at polling semantics, but says nothing about whether the operation is safe/idempotent, what status values exist, or what the payload looks like while a task is still pending.
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 zero filler; the core action and payload 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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry some of the return-value burden, and it partially does by naming status and result payload. It still omits lifecycle detail (pending vs. complete states, empty payload behavior) needed to use this status tool correctly in a polling loop.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters well described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema - it never clarifies that action must match the endpoint used at creation time, which is the one non-obvious semantic an agent might get wrong.
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 and latest result payload for a qwen-2 task), which is more informative than a bare 'get task'. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling creation tools edit_image/text_to_image, but never names them, so an agent must infer the create-then-poll relationship.
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 phrase 'for a qwen-2 task' implies this is the polling companion to edit_image/text_to_image, so the use context is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it, how often to poll, or what to do instead once the task reaches a terminal state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.