Monitor a drama's asynchronous task queue: view pending, processing, done, or failed status for image, video, and compositing stages. Use when checking progress after generation.
查一部剧的任务队列进度(出图/出视频/合成各阶段的 pending/processing/done/failed)。异步生成后用它看进度。免费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drama_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly communicates that this is a read-only progress-checking operation and even notes that it is free. However, it does not describe error behavior, polling semantics, or response format, so transparency is only partial.
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?
Three short clauses with no filler: the purpose, parameters, usage timing, and cost are all covered. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter status lookup, the description covers the query subject and observable status categories. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the shape of the returned queue information or any error conditions, leaving some ambiguity in what the agent should expect back.
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?
The schema provides only drama_id with type and positivity constraints, and description coverage is 0%. The description refers to 'a drama' which implicitly maps to drama_id, but it does not explicitly explain where the ID comes from or how it is used. The implicit reference is enough for minimal use, but not a strong compensation 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 clearly states a specific verb-resource pair: checking a drama's task queue progress, and enumerates the relevant stages and statuses. It distinguishes this as a progress-monitoring tool tied to asynchronous generation, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling.
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?
The description explicitly says to use it after asynchronous generation to check progress, which conveys the intended usage context. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but for a simple status polling tool the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.