batch_statusRead a batch started with batch: its progress, and one page of results in the order the URLs were sent. When nextOffset is not null, pass it as offset to read the next page of results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results to return in this call (default 10). | |
| offset | No | Position of the first result to return. Defaults to 0. | |
| batchId | Yes | The id returned by batch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / batchId / formatAdded value: +"uuid"Input schema / properties / batchId / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Results to return in this call (default 10).",
+ "maximum": 25,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Position of the first result to return. Defaults to 0.",
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results come back one page at a time, in the original URL submission order, with a nextOffset cursor signaling more pages to fetch.
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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the pagination instruction. 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: it names progress, a page of results, ordering, and the nextOffset cursor needed to continue reading. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the relationship between the returned nextOffset and the offset input, which the schema alone ("Position of the first result to return") does not convey.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (a batch started with batch), plus exactly what is returned: progress plus one page of results in the order URLs were sent. This clearly separates it from the sibling 'batch' that creates the batch and from crawl_status.
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?
It gives an explicit conditional workflow for pagination: when nextOffset is not null, pass it as offset. It does not, however, state when-not to use it or contrast it with other status tools such as crawl_status, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.
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.