Poll the status of a video generation job by ID; wait about 30 seconds between polls, and treat terminal failures as final without automatic regeneration.
Poll once. Wait about 30 seconds between polls. Terminal failures must not trigger automatic regeneration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — single-shot polling semantics, a recommended interval, and explicit handling of terminal failures. It stops short of describing job states or whether repeated polling has 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cadence, then the failure rule. Every sentence carries information, though the terseness borders on under-specification.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits where job_id comes from and how this step fits the submit → status → download flow. For a polling tool in a multi-step pipeline that is a meaningful gap.
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 single required parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage — only a regex pattern — and the description never mentions it, its provenance (from heygen_submit), or its format. With one undocumented parameter the description is expected to compensate and does not.
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?
"Poll once" implies a status check, but the description never names the resource being polled (a HeyGen generation job) or what a poll returns. Combined with the name heygen_status the intent is inferable, but it is not a stated verb+resource, and it draws no boundary against heygen_receipt or heygen_download.
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?
It gives concrete operational guidance — poll once, ~30s between polls — and a guardrail against auto-regeneration on terminal failure. What is missing is routing: nothing says when to call this instead of heygen_receipt, or what to do after a successful/non-terminal poll.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.