ProteinIQ

Submit ProteinIQ Batch

submit_batch

Submit a single-tool batch through the batch/workflow engine with an explicit spending limit and stable idempotency key. Reuse the same key and exact request after an uncertain response. Results and cancellation use workflow run actions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tool": "<tool>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "input": "<input>",
      "combination_mode": "<combination_mode>",
      "max_credits": "<max_credits>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "submit_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`input`	Yes
`settings`	No
`project_id`	No
`max_credits`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes
`combination_mode`	Yes	zip

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9._:-]{8,200}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "tool",
-  "name",
-  "input",
-  "combination_mode",
-  "max_credits"
-]New value: +[
+  "tool",
+  "name",
+  "input",
+  "combination_mode",
+  "max_credits",
+  "idempotency_key"
+]

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds the two things annotations cannot convey: the max_credits spend ceiling and the idempotency-key dedupe mechanism, which is consistent with idempotentHint=false (repeat calls create new batches unless the key is reused). It does not say what happens when the credit limit is exceeded or what is returned.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cost/idempotency constraints, with no filler. Slightly compressed for a tool with eight parameters and nested payloads, but every sentence contributes.

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?

No output schema and no annotation detail beyond hints, yet the description covers only a fraction of a complex 8-parameter submission tool with nested objects. The meaning and format of `input`, `settings`, and `combination_mode`, plus failure/limit behavior, are all left unaddressed.

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 8 parameters (6 required, nested input/settings), so the description must carry the load. It only glosses max_credits and idempotency_key, leaving `name`, `input`, `settings`, `project_id`, and especially the zip/cartesian `combination_mode` enum entirely undefined anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: submitting a single-tool batch through the batch/workflow engine, with spending limit and idempotency key called out as defining traits. It implicitly separates itself from submit_job by saying 'single-tool batch', but never names that sibling, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives real retry guidance ('reuse the same key and exact request after an uncertain response') and routes result/cancellation needs to workflow run actions, which is useful. However, it never says when to choose this over submit_job or start_workflow, which are the closest siblings and the most likely source of mis-selection.

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

All ProteinIQ 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?