zhenzhen-nanobanana-mcp

Get Batch Result

get_batch_result

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve saved results and paths for a registered batch by request ID without re-sending requests. Returns error if the batch is incomplete or failed.

Instructions

读取已登记批次及保存路径，不调用上游、不重发请求；未完成/失败返回 isError。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_batch_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`reused`	No
`status`	Yes
`warning`	No
`batch_id`	Yes
`api_format`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes
`manifest_path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, yet the description adds genuine behavior: it does not call upstream, does not resend requests, and returns isError for incomplete/failed batches. The isError error-handling semantics are real value beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight clauses with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral caveats following; no wasted wording, though it is terse to the point of omitting parameter context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 1-param read tool with annotations and an output schema, the safety and error-handling picture is adequately covered. The only real gap is the unexplained request_id, but return values need not be described given the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single request_id parameter is never explained in the description — no format, source, or meaning ('已登记批次' only loosely implies an id). The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb+resource: reads an already-registered batch and its save path (读取已登记批次及保存路径). This is discernible from the sibling task-submission tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_image_tasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage via the constraints '不调用上游、不重发请求' — i.e. use this to fetch a result without re-triggering work — but it never states when to prefer it over get_image_tasks or under what conditions a batch is 'registered'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.