Download a job's results as a CSV file.
Use when:
You want the full job output as a CSV for offline analysis or export.
Prefer this over pull_results when the consumer needs spreadsheet/CSV format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID to download as CSV. | |
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning safety (read-only), error handling, permissions, or rate limits, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 very concise: one sentence for the main action, followed by a bulleted list of usage criteria. No redundant information, and the key point is front-loaded.
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 simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and usage context. It contrasts with a sibling, but lacks behavioral details that would make it fully complete for an agent with zero annotations.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'full job output as a CSV' but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (job_id and api_key descriptions are clear).
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 states the tool downloads a job's results as a CSV file, with a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('job's results'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool `pull_results` by mentioning the CSV format preference.
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 provides explicit 'Use when' conditions (offline analysis/export, preferring CSV over `pull_results`). However, it does not include when not to use or other alternatives beyond `pull_results`.
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 is scoped to a specific resource type and action, with clear distinctions between similarly named operations (e.g., pull_results vs pull_job_csv, initialize_query vs validate_query). No two tools appear to perform the same function.
Tools consistently use snake_case verb_noun patterns (create_X, get_X, list_X, update_X, delete_X), with domain-specific verbs like submit, pull, initialize, and validate adding semantic clarity. Minor deviations such as pull_* vs get_* and compound names like create_dataset_from_csv are still predictable.
At 60 tools, the server is heavily overstuffed for a single MCP surface. While the broad domain (datasets, entities, jobs, monitors, projects, webhooks) justifies many operations, the sheer volume exceeds typical recommended limits and includes near-duplicates (pull_results vs pull_job_csv, get_dataset vs get_dataset_status), making agent tool selection unwieldy.
The tool set provides robust CRUD and lifecycle coverage for all major resources, including special operations like csv import, webhook mapping, and monitor enable/disable. Minor gaps such as the absence of a get_monitor (single monitor details) and no cancel_job can be worked around via list_monitors and waiting for job completion.