Extend MCP

Get a split batch

get_split_batch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the aggregate status of a split batch (split group) submitted by run_split_batch. wait: true polls until terminal. Statuses: PENDING, PROCESSING, PROCESSED, FAILED, CANCELLED. Follow any llmContext guidance included in results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No	Poll until the batch reaches a terminal status (within the wait budget).
`batchId`	Yes	The bpr_... ID from run_split_batch.
`environment`	Yes	"TEST" = the Test (development) environment, "PRODUCTION" = live. Must match a granted target from get_me (an API key pins one environment).
`waitSeconds`	No	Max seconds to block waiting on the run (clamped to the server wait budget).
`workspaceId`	Yes	Target workspace (ws_...). Must be a granted workspace — get_me lists the accepted values.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`runCount`	No
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`llmContext`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

It discloses polling behavior via wait, enumerates terminal/non-terminal statuses, and instructs the agent to follow llmContext guidance in results. Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and idempotent, so these additions build on rather than repeat structured metadata.

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?

Three compact sentences deliver the core purpose, polling option, status vocabulary, and result guidance without wasted words. The most important info is front-loaded.

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?

Given the annotations, output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description covers everything essential: what the batch status represents, optional polling, terminal statuses, and llmContext handling. Nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the wait parameter's meaning and adds mild context for batchId by referencing run_split_batch, but it does not substantially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly identifies the action (get aggregate status), the resource (split batch), and ties it to run_split_batch. It distinguishes an aggregate batch-level view from the singleton get_split_run by using 'aggregate status' and 'split group', though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says this tool is for the batch submitted by run_split_batch and explains the wait polling option. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_split_run, but the batch/run distinction is implied through 'aggregate status' and the referenced submission tool.

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

All Extend MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource+action combination, and the descriptions actively disambiguate potential overlaps (e.g., extract_data vs parse_document, detect_form_fields vs edit_pdf, get_file vs get_file_upload). The consistent verb_noun prefix pattern makes the semantic boundary of every tool immediately recognizable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant verb_noun pattern is highly consistent across all nine domains (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, run_*, get_*_run, get_*_batch, publish_*_version). Minor deviations exist: deploy_workflow_version vs publish_*_version for the same freeze-a-draft concept, and get_form_detection_run doesn't mirror its detect_form_fields counterpart.

Tool Count2/5

86 tools is a very heavy agent-facing surface, well past the 25+ threshold. The count is inflated by the near-identical 13-tool lifecycle repeated across extract, classify, and split (each with list/get/create/update/publish/runs/batches/versions), and while each tool has a distinct purpose, the sheer volume makes selection harder.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycles are thoroughly covered: create → update → publish → run (single and batch) → poll → cancel → delete-run → list runs/versions. Notable gaps include no delete tool for extractors, classifiers, splitters, workflows, or evaluation sets, and edit/form-detection runs have no list endpoint (documented workaround: keep run IDs). These are hygenic gaps that don't block primary workflows.

Resources

Need Help?