Retry a failed simulation run.
Resets an errored run back to 'created' status and triggers a new package build. The same run ID is reused. Only valid when status is 'error'. Returns 409 for any other state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The run ID to retry |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the state reset, the triggering of a package build, the reuse of the run ID, and the error response for invalid states. This is strong behavioral context, though it stops short of describing any side effects or ownership/permission implications, which would have earned a 5.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable detail about state, behavior, and constraints without fluff. It is well-structured with a clear hierarchy of information.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and sibling context, the description is complete. It covers the core operation, state transition, validity condition, and failure mode, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.
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?
The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with a clear description for run_id ('The run ID to retry'). The description does not add additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Retry a failed simulation run') and the resource (simulation run). It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_run and get_run by specifying the state transition from 'error' to 'created', making the tool's unique role obvious.
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 explicitly states the only valid precondition (status is 'error') and the consequence for other states (returns 409). This provides clear when-to-use guidance. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the explicit state constraint effectively communicates when not to use it.
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: project listing vs. details, run polling vs. full details, and separate lifecycle operations (start/cancel/retry). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_projects, get_run, start_simulation) with clear verbs. The compound get_run_status is still predictable.
9 tools is a well-scoped size for a domain focused on managing flood simulation runs. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy.
The run lifecycle is complete: start, poll, retrieve results, cancel, retry. Minor gap is the lack of scenario creation or building tools, but the server appears to operate on pre-existing scenarios.
