LeanrIQ

retry task

retry_task

Idempotent

retry task. Classification: read-only. Execution: durable. Task support: optional. Mutation modes: validate_only, preview_only, execute. Partial failure policy: completed_items_not_rolled_back. The returned JSON is internal application state for LeanrIQ and ChatGPT orchestration. Use assistantSummary first when responding to the user. Never display raw JSON, data, or meta unless the user explicitly asks for raw JSON. Mention IDs only when useful for follow-up or debugging. Prefer concise, human language, highlight the most useful insight, and suggest the next best LeanrIQ action. If idempotencyKey is omitted on a mutation, the MCP layer derives a deterministic retry key from the tool and business arguments so an accidental identical replay cannot create duplicate work. For a mutation when more than one seat is authorised, seatId or seatName must be supplied on that exact tool call; a remembered or previously selected seat is not sufficient for a write.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No
`seatId`	No
`taskId`	Yes
`seatName`	No
`accountId`	No
`sourceLocale`	No
`targetMarket`	No
`contentLocale`	No
`marketContext`	No
`targetMarkets`	No
`contentLocales`	No
`idempotencyKey`	No
`defaultContentLocale`	No
`marketLanguageProfile`	No
`resolvedContentLocale`	No
`languageVariantGroupId`	No
`requestedOutputLocales`	No
`supportedContentLocales`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`assistantSummary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedOct 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contentLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / contentLocales

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / defaultContentLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / languageVariantGroupId

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / marketContext

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "currency": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "targetMarket": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "targetMarkets": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "timeZone": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / marketLanguageProfile

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / requestedOutputLocales

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / resolvedContentLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / sourceLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / supportedContentLocales

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / targetMarket

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / targetMarkets

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 160,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 50,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description states "Classification: read-only" while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, a direct contradiction. Although it does add real behavioral context (idempotency-key derivation, partial-failure policy completed_items_not_rolled_back, seat requirement for mutations), the read-only claim conflicts with the structured safety signal and could mislead an agent into treating a mutating call as a safe read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is dominated by generic response-formatting boilerplate (never show raw JSON, prefer concise language, suggest next action) that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The one substantive fact about the tool is buried after a tautological opening line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 18 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema present, the description should at minimum state purpose, prerequisites, and key parameter meanings. Instead it supplies policy boilerplate and omits the operation's actual effect, leaving the definition inadequate for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 18 parameters, and the description only touches three of them (idempotencyKey, seatId, seatName). Core inputs such as taskId, reason, marketContext, and the various locale fields are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"retry task" is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, with no elaboration on what retrying means or what state it produces. The remaining boilerplate (classification, execution, mutation modes) describes policy, not the tool's purpose, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_task, cancel_task, or list_tasks.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to retry a task versus inspecting it with get_task, listing it with list_tasks, or cancelling it. The only usage-adjacent content is a prerequisite for writes (seatId/seatName on a multi-seat call), which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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

All LeanrIQ tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?