Fetch current status and latest result payload for a Recraft background removal or image upscaling task by task ID and action.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a recraft 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: -falseInput 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 discloses that the operation is a read that returns status and the latest result payload, which is useful context, but it omits permissions, error behavior, or whether results may be null while a task is 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to describing the operation and the data returned.
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 polling tool with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the returned data. It is slightly lacking because no output schema exists and the description does not explain the shape or lifecycle of the result payload.
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 are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('current status and latest result payload for a recraft task'), making the purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like remove_background or upscale_image, so it falls just 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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. It does not explain that this tool should be used after creating an asynchronous task or how to poll with it, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.