Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sanhang-mcp

sanhang-mcp

by sanhangkc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

查询或取消渲染任务

sanhang_task

Check the status of a submitted Manim render task, block until it finishes, or request cancellation. Use it with sanhang_render wait=false to poll results by task_id and avoid client timeouts.

Instructions

查询一个已提交渲染任务的状态；也可以阻塞等待它完成，或请求取消。配合 sanhang_render 的 wait=false 使用：先提交拿到 task_id，再在这里等结果，避免客户端超时。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "sanhang_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNostatus 查询一次；wait 轮询到完成；cancel 请求取消。默认 status。status
task_idYessanhang_render 返回的任务 ID（UUID）。
max_wait_secondsNoaction=wait 时的等待上限秒数，默认 240，范围 10~900。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them by advertising a cancel action. Beyond the annotations it discloses the blocking-wait behavior and the timeout-avoidance rationale, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of explaining what cancel actually does to an in-flight job (interruptible or not, cost implications), which is the main remaining behavioral question.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the three capabilities, followed by the workflow guidance. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers invocation and workflow adequately. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what a status result looks like (state names, progress fields), which matters for an agent deciding whether to poll or wait.

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%: the enum values for action, the UUID provenance of task_id, and the 10–900 range with default 240 for max_wait_seconds are all documented in the schema. The description restates the submit-then-wait flow and the task_id provenance but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific resource (a submitted render task) and three concrete operations: query status, block-wait for completion, and request cancellation. It explicitly ties itself to the sibling tool sanhang_render, so an agent can distinguish it from sanhang_render and sanhang_gallery without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit workflow: submit with sanhang_render's wait=false, take the returned task_id, then come here to wait for the result in order to avoid client timeouts. That named pairing tells the agent both when to use this tool and which alternative behavior (blocking render) it replaces.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools