get_generationPoll a prior AI generation run by ID to check status and retrieve outputs, including videos, optionally waiting up to two minutes or saving results to a folder.
Status and outputs of a run started earlier (poll this for videos).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| wait | No | Wait up to 2 minutes for it to finish | |
| save_to | No | Optional folder to download the results into (defaults to TANVO_OUTPUT_DIR when set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world. The description adds that this observes an earlier-started run and should be polled for videos. It does not disclose return shape, status transitions, pagination, or whether wait blocks, leaving behavior largely to schema and annotations.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded, with a parenthetical that adds polling guidance. No filler, though the structure is minimal and the parenthetical could be slightly clearer.
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 read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description identifies what is returned (status, outputs) and when to poll. However it omits what id refers to, expected status values, and how wait/save_to interact, leaving gaps an agent must infer.
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 coverage is 67%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters. id is undocumented in both schema and description; wait and save_to have schema text but the description adds no meaning beyond that. It fails to compensate for the missing id semantics.
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?
States a specific resource (a generation run) and action (retrieve status/outputs) in a short sentence, and distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_video by being the polling endpoint. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, so it is clear but relies on the parenthetical for differentiation.
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?
Includes an implicit when-to-use cue: poll this after starting a run, specifically for videos. It does not identify alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is present but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.