Retrieve the current status and latest result payload for an asynchronous Wan task by supplying its task ID and originating endpoint action.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a wan 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: -falsev0.1.9Input schema / properties / action / descriptionPrevious value: -"Endpoint the task was created on."New value: +"Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on."v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only fetch and names the returned content at a high level, but omits auth requirements, polling behavior, status value semantics, rate limits, and error handling.
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 wasted words. It states the action and returned payload 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?
The tool is simple and the input schema is fully documented, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description gives only a high-level view of the return payload and does not explain status values, polling expectations, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a task-status tool.
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%, and the schema fully documents both parameters, including the action enum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('current status and latest result payload for a wan task'), making it clearly distinct from the sibling creation and account tools. An agent can identify this as the task-status retrieval tool without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by 'current status' and 'latest result payload' for a task, suggesting it is used after an asynchronous task has been created. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the polling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.