workflow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Task Status

get_task_status

Check an asynchronous workflow task's status (running, done, or error) and retrieve the full structured result when completed.

Instructions

查询异步任务状态：running / done / error；done 时返回完整结果（同 run_template 返回结构）。

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_task_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful state machine (running/done/error) and that 'done' yields the full run_template-shaped result, which is genuine beyond-schema information. However, it says nothing about result retention, whether the task record expires after completion, or polling expectations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and the state list, with the payload note trailing. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description usefully adds that the done-result matches run_template. What is missing for a polling tool is the operational context: how the task_id is obtained and whether/how results expire.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the single task_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description implies task_id comes from the async run flow, but does not state its origin or format explicitly, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

States the specific verb+resource ('query async task status') and enumerates the three possible states, which makes the tool's job unambiguous. It also ties the 'done' payload back to run_template's return structure, hinting at the async workflow. It stops short of explicitly naming run_template_async as the producer of the task_id.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'async task status' plus the sibling set (run_template_async) makes the polling role inferable, but there is no explicit 'call this after run_template_async', no indication of when to stop polling, and no mention of alternatives.

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

Deploy Server