Score up to 25 workflow items sequentially in one request via POST /v1/score/batch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | List of scoring items, each containing workflow, payload, and optional options. | |
| continue_on_error | No | When true, later items continue even if an earlier item fails. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the sequential processing behavior and the batch limit. This provides additional contextual value beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the key facts (action, scope, limit, endpoint) with no fluff.
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 simplicity of the tool, the description provides the endpoint, item limit, and sequential behavior, while the schema explains the parameters. It lacks an explicit return-value description, but this is not critical for a batch scoring tool with no output schema.
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 schema covers both parameters (items and continue_on_error) with clear descriptions, and the description itself adds no extra parameter-level detail. With 100% coverage, a 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 states the verb 'Score', the resource 'workflow items', and the specific batch scope 'up to 25 ... sequentially in one request' with the endpoint. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'score_workflow' which likely handles single items.
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 conveys usage for batch scoring of up to 25 items, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to the single-item alternative 'score_workflow'.
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 concern: account limits, usage, workflow schema, workflow list, single scoring, batch scoring, feedback, and payload validation. The only potential overlap (score_workflow vs score_batch) is clearly delineated by batch versus single operation.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore separation (get_*, list_*, score_*, submit_*, validate_*). The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a scoring API, covering account management, workflow discovery, scoring, validation, and feedback without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage for the domain: discovering workflows, fetching schemas, validating payloads, scoring (single or batch), checking account limits/usage, and submitting feedback. No obvious gaps exist.