Skip to main content
Glama

get_status

Check the processing status of a text-to-speech synthesis request by providing the request ID to monitor progress and retrieve output details.

Instructions

Get processing status for a synthesis request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestIdYesRequest ID to check status for

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of the get_status tool. Retrieves the status and result of a TTS synthesis request from the activeRequests Map using the provided requestId.
    getStatus(requestId: string) {
      const request = this.activeRequests.get(requestId);
      if (request) {
        return {
          success: true,
          requestId,
          status: request.status,
          result: request.result
        };
      } else {
        return {
          success: false,
          error: `Request ${requestId} not found`
        };
      }
    }
  • Registration of the get_status tool in the list of available tools, including its description and input schema.
      name: 'get_status',
      description: 'Get processing status for a synthesis request',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          requestId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Request ID to check status for',
          },
        },
        required: ['requestId'],
      },
    },
  • MCP CallToolRequest handler for get_status. Calls ttsServer.getStatus and formats the response as MCP content.
    case 'get_status':
      const status = ttsServer.getStatus(args?.requestId as string);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: status.success 
              ? `🎙️ **Request Status**\n\n**ID:** ${status.requestId}\n**Status:** ${status.status}\n**Details:** ${JSON.stringify(status.result, null, 2)}`
              : `❌ **Error:** ${status.error}`,
          },
        ],
      };
  • Input schema validation for the get_status tool, requiring a requestId string.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        requestId: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Request ID to check status for',
        },
      },
      required: ['requestId'],
    },
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status but doesn't describe what the status includes (e.g., pending, completed, failed), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid request ID), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with asynchronous processes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get processing status for a synthesis request') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a status-checking tool. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., status states, progress percentages, error messages) or behavioral aspects like idempotency or polling requirements. This is inadequate for guiding an agent in a synthesis workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'requestId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is for a synthesis request, which is already evident from the tool's context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('processing status for a synthesis request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'synthesize_speech' (which creates requests) and 'list_output_files' (which lists results). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'batch_synthesize' or 'get_voices', which are related but serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a request ID from a previous synthesis operation), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_output_files' for retrieving results. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/samihalawa/advanced-tts-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server