Check a social media read task's status, partial results, sources, and explicit failure reasons; optionally wait up to 30 seconds to avoid repeated polling.
取得任务状态、部分结果、来源和明确失败原因。可等待最多30秒，减少重复查询。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| wait_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the call can wait up to 30 seconds, returns partial results, source, and clear failure reasons. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose then wait behavior. Every clause adds information (what is returned, wait option). No 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?
With rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers return contents and wait behavior. It leaves task_id semantics implicit, but the required parameter is self-explanatory and the tool is simple.
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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description explains the wait_seconds behavior (max 30 seconds, reduce repeated queries) but does not describe task_id beyond implying it identifies a task. Partial compensation only.
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?
get_task clearly states a specific verb (取得/get) and resource (task status, partial results, source, failure reason), making its function distinct from siblings like cancel_task. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or sibling for contrast, so it falls short of the top benchmark for routing.
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 description only offers an implicit usage tip: wait up to 30 seconds to reduce repeated queries. It does not say when to choose this tool over cancel_task or search, nor does it provide exclusions. Hence implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.