Check the status and result of a z-image text-to-image task by providing its task ID.
Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a z-image 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.
v0.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns both a status and a 'latest' result payload, implying results evolve over time, but it omits what statuses exist, what the payload looks like while the task is still pending, and whether a read-only retrieval has any side effects or 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key noun (task status/result) appears immediately. Nothing in it is wasted.
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 and no annotations exist, so the description must cover the return contract, and it only partially does so ('status and latest result payload') without enumerating states or pending behavior. For a simple two-parameter getter this is adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 task_id and the action enum (with its default-endpoint behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when structured data does the work.
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?
Specific verb (Fetch) plus resource (current status and latest result payload) scoped to a z-image task, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling text_to_image that creates such tasks. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 versus alternatives, no polling guidance (interval, retry, how long a task stays queryable), and no prerequisite linking it to a task created by text_to_image. The retrieval context is only implied by the phrase 'for a z-image task'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.