Fetch a Seedance task's current status and latest result payload by providing its task ID.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a seedance 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.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.9Input 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."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the call returns current status plus the 'latest' result payload (implying results evolve over time). It says nothing about auth needs, idempotency, or how pending/failed tasks are represented, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a status-polling endpoint.
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 no filler; the verb and object appear immediately. It is efficient, though arguably thinner than ideal for a polling tool.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics; it does name status and result payload. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits polling expectations, error/failure states, and authentication requirements, leaving it only minimally adequate.
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 task_id and the action enum already documented in the schema, including the default behavior for the async endpoint. The description adds no parameter meaning 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?
The description gives a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (status and result payload for a seedance task), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, contrast itself with the siblings text_to_video (which creates tasks) or explain its relation to them, so it stops 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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, no polling guidance, and no note that it should be used after text_to_video creates a task. The usage context is only weakly implied by the word 'task'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.