Fetch a render by its ID to check processing status and obtain the file URL, enabling you to track generated images, videos, or PDFs from templates.
Retrieve a specific render by its ID to get the status and file URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| render_id | Yes | The render ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns status and file URL, which is meaningful because there is no output schema, but it omits behavior around not-found errors or pending/incomplete renders.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the purpose clause. Nothing to trim.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete, and it partially compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned fields. It could still say what happens when the render is still processing or the ID is invalid.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents render_id. The description repeats 'by its ID' without adding format, source, or provenance details, placing it at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
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 verb (retrieve) and resource (render) scoped by ID, and names what is returned (status and file URL). It implicitly contrasts with list_renders by saying 'a specific render by its ID', but never names that sibling explicitly.
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 phrase 'by its ID to get the status and file URL' implies the usage context (checking one render's progress/output), which is enough to distinguish it from list_renders. No explicit when-not guidance, no mention of polling or what to do if the render is not finished.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.