Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

batch_execute

Execute multiple router requests in one bridge round trip, reporting failures per item.

Instructions

Run a list of router requests in ONE bridge round trip (transport batching, not a rollback transaction: failures are reported per item).

ops (list[typing.Any]): [{method, params}, ...] — the ops to run.

abort_on_error (bool | None): Stop at the first failure (default false).

detail (str | None): full (default) | summary (long lists cut to 25 + count) | minimal (top-level scalars only).

response_format (str | None): yaml (default, token-cheap) | json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opsYes
detailNo
abort_on_errorNo
response_formatNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Detail"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Response Format"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is transport batching, not a transaction, that failures are reported per item, that abort_on_error defaults to false, and that response_format defaults to yaml. It does not describe execution order or concurrency, but the most important non-obvious behavior is covered.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The purpose and key caveat are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each parameter gets one compact line with defaults and allowed values. There is no filler, and every sentence adds operational value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the parameters, defaults, failure semantics, and response formats. It stops short of specifying the exact response/report structure or which router methods are valid in ops, so it is complete for invocation but not exhaustive.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully, and it does. It defines the ops shape as [{method, params}, ...], gives abort_on_error's default, lists detail values (full/summary/minimal), and response_format values (yaml/json). Every parameter is given actionable meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Run a list of router requests in ONE bridge round trip.' This clearly establishes what the tool does and separates it from the single-request sibling bridge_router_call. The transport-batching caveat further distinguishes it from a rollback/transactional batch.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies the use case: batch multiple router requests when you want a single round trip, and it warns that failures are per-item rather than rolled back. It does not explicitly say 'use bridge_router_call for a single request,' but the framing gives enough context for an agent to choose correctly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools