transloadit_get_assembly_statusRetrieve the latest status of a Transloadit Assembly by URL or ID to monitor video, image, and document processing progress.
Fetch the latest Assembly status by URL or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assembly_id | No | ||
| assembly_url | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| assembly | No | ||
| warnings | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.5v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, nor does it mention implications like precedence when both assembly_id and assembly_url are provided, or any other side effects or prerequisites.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary repetition or 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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. However, the lack of annotations and absence of usage guidance about when to use this over wait_for_assembly leaves the description only partially complete for an agent to make informed decisions.
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%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by URL or ID' hints that the two parameters are alternatives, but it adds little beyond the parameter names themselves, with no explanation of formats, requiredness, or behavior if both are supplied.
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 the tool fetches the latest Assembly status by URL or ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_assembly' and 'wait_for_assembly' by focusing on fetching status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as transloadit_wait_for_assembly. The description only says what it does, not when or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.