Fetch the current status and result payload for a Topaz AI task by task ID and action type so you can poll upscale jobs and retrieve output.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a topaz 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."v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a safe read, and 'latest result payload' hints that results may not exist yet, but it says nothing about whether the call blocks, what status values exist, whether results expire, or any rate limits.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that it omits useful context rather than earning extra credit.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least sketch the return shape (status values, presence/absence of payload), which it does not.
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%, with both task_id and the action enum fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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) scoped to 'a topaz task'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling creation tools upscale_image/upscale_video and from login/check_pricing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that this is the follow-up to an asynchronous upscale task, and no statement about polling cadence or alternatives. The phrase 'current status' weakly implies a polling use case but leaves the agent to infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.