Skip to main content
Glama

rhino_batch_call

Dispatch multiple Rhino bridge methods in a single round-trip to reduce latency for workflows with consecutive automation calls.

Instructions

Dispatch multiple bridge methods in a single round-trip.

    IMPORTANT: ``steps[].method`` is a **bridge dispatcher route**, not
    an MCP tool name. The MCP tool ``rhino_layer_create`` maps to the
    dispatcher route ``rhino.layer.create``; ``rhino_document_summary``
    maps to ``rhino.query.document_summary`` (NOT ``rhino.document.summary``).
    Standalone-only tools (``rhino_set_user_text`` etc. that have no
    ``bridge_call`` path) cannot be batched. A wrong route name returns
    an ``error`` row with ``HandlerError``; the batch aborts when
    ``on_error='stop'``.

    Measured impact (v0.6.x, localhost): direct sequential layer.create
    ~580ms/op vs batched ~340ms/op — N x ~240ms saved per batch (the
    MCP↔bridge round-trip cost paid once instead of N times). Effective
    for any workflow that issues >5 bridge calls back-to-back.

    Returns ``{summary: {total, ok, failed, on_error}, results: [...]}``
    where each ``results`` entry has ``index``, ``method``, ``status``
    (``"ok"`` | ``"error"``), and either ``result`` or ``error``.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral context: it explains error handling (‘on_error’ behavior and error rows), performance impact (latency savings), and the response structure. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is structured into clear sections (purpose, important notes, performance, return format). It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the important notes into the main flow.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is complete for a complex batch tool: it covers input format (steps, on_error), important mapping rules, error behavior, performance trade-offs, and output structure. No critical gaps are present.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (method, params, on_error). The tool description adds limited additional parameter insight, primarily reiterating the method naming convention. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates but does not fully alleviate the need for parameter understanding.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the purpose: 'Dispatch multiple bridge methods in a single round-trip.' It precisely describes the verb (dispatch) and resource (multiple bridge methods), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it batches calls that would otherwise be issued individually.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage guidelines, including when to use ('effective for any workflow that issues >5 bridge calls back-to-back'), how to map tool names to dispatcher routes with examples, and what tools cannot be batched (standalone-only tools). It also explains the 'on_error' parameter's behavior.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/EaseHee/rhino-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server