Check a local video job's state and progress (0-1) by job ID. Done jobs return artifact path, MIME type, bytes, duration, and any history warning; jobs last for this server process.
Check a local video job's state and progress (0–1). A done job includes the local artifact path, MIME type, bytes, duration and any history warning. Jobs last for this server process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: the progress scale (0–1), what a completed job returns, and the crucial lifetime constraint that jobs last only for this server process.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return-value and lifetime detail. No filler.
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?
With no output schema and no annotation-level return detail, the description usefully enumerates the fields of a done job (artifact path, MIME, bytes, duration, warning) and the retention window. It stops short of naming the possible state values or the behavior for invalid ids.
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 0% and the single job_id parameter has only a minLength constraint. The description never explains what a job_id is, where it comes from, or what happens for an unknown/expired id, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check a local video job's state and progress') and scopes it to local, server-process-lifetime jobs, which separates it from network/account siblings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like cancel_job, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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: poll this after submitting a video job. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus cancel_job or how to obtain a job_id, and no guidance on polling frequency or terminal states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.