transloadit_get_robot_helpReturns a robot summary and parameter details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robot_name | No | ||
| robot_names | No | ||
| detail_level | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robot | No | ||
| robots | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| not_found | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns', which is mildly read-only, but it does not explain how detail_level alters the output, what happens when no robot_name is provided, or how robot_name and robot_names interact. The phrase 'summary and parameter details' may even mislead when detail_level is set to 'examples'.
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 with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficiently front-loaded, though its brevity comes at the cost of necessary 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?
Although an output schema exists, the description omits critical context: all parameters are optional, and it does not state what happens when neither robot_name nor robot_names is supplied, or whether multiple names are and'ed or or'ed. It also fails to differentiate the tool from transloadit_list_robots, leaving the agent under-informed.
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%, and the description offers no parameter-level explanations. It does not clarify the relationship between robot_name and robot_names, nor the purpose of detail_level beyond the schema's enum values, so it fails to compensate for the total absence of schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('robot summary and parameter details'), clearly indicating this is a help/read tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like transloadit_list_robots, leaving the differentiation implicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transloadit_list_robots or transloadit_get_assembly_status. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: creation, status retrieval, waiting, linting, and listing robots/templates. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the same transloadit_verb_noun pattern with clear verbs like create, get, lint, list, wait. The naming is perfectly consistent.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a media processing workflow, covering assembly creation, monitoring, validation, and resource exploration without bloat.
The core assembly lifecycle (create, status, wait) is fully covered, and linting adds pre-validation. A notable gap is the lack of a cancel operation or broader assembly listing, but these are non-essential for common workflows.