fvs_get_render_statusCheck a Future Video Studio render job.
Provide either `project_id` or the full `status_url` returned by
fvs_submit_render.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | ||
| status_url | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / api_keyRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Api Key"
-}Input schema / properties / base_urlRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Base Url"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that either project_id or the status_url returned by fvs_submit_render can be used, which clarifies input behavior. It does not describe the response format or polling behavior, but the output schema and annotations reduce the burden.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives essential input instructions. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple status-check tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter selection adequately. It is missing an explicit pointer to fvs_get_paid_render_status for paid render jobs, which would make it fully complete. However, the provided context is sufficient for most use cases.
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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's minimal parameter info. It names both parameters and clarifies they are alternatives ('either ... or'), adding meaning the schema lacks. It also indicates the provenance of status_url, though it does not give format or precedence details, so not a 5.
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 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'a Future Video Studio render job', clearly stating the function. It also references fvs_submit_render for the status_url, which helps position the tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling fvs_get_paid_render_status, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implies the tool is used after submitting a render by mentioning fvs_submit_render, but it does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like fvs_get_paid_render_status. It provides input instructions ('Provide either project_id or the full status_url') but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. This is implied usage, not explicit differentiation.
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.
The two submit-like tools (fvs_submit_render vs fvs_create_paid_render_quote) and two status tools (fvs_get_render_status vs fvs_get_paid_render_status) could be confused, but their descriptions clearly distinguish by payment mode and required identifiers. The remaining tools have distinct purposes.
All tools share the 'fvs_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., cancel_render, get_render_status, submit_render). The one outlier is 'fvs_example_render_request', which is a noun phrase rather than verb-first, but the overall pattern remains predictable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a video rendering service, covering submission, status checking, cancellation, download, example generation, and a UI opener without unnecessary bloat. This falls comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range.
The standard render lifecycle (submit, status, cancel, download) is fully covered, and the paid quote path is also supported. The main gap is the lack of a tool to list existing renders or projects, which would help agents manage multiple jobs, but this is a minor omission.