Check job status and retrieve output URLs once processing completes.
Check job state and return output URLs when ready.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_handle | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| state | Yes | ||
| images | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| progress | No | ||
| video_url | No | ||
| job_handle | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It notes that output URLs appear 'when ready,' but does not describe failed-job behavior, polling cadence, rate limits, or whether the call blocks. For a status-check tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in behavioral and parameter detail.
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. However, for a status-check tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description should cover job states, error handling, and how to interpret the 'ready' condition. It remains too thin for the tool's role.
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_handle has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what a job handle is, where it comes from, or its expected format. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name itself.
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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('job state'), and mentions the output URLs returned when ready. It distinguishes itself from list_jobs_tool by focusing on a single job handle, though it does not explicitly name siblings or scope limitations.
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?
Usage is implied: poll a job after submission to see if output URLs are ready. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_jobs_tool, cancel_job_tool, or other job-related siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.