Retry a failed or dead Cortex job by re-queueing it for another attempt, returning the job ID and updated status.
Re-queue a failed or dead Cortex job for one more attempt (POST /v1/cortex/jobs/:id/retry). Returns {job_id, status}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Cortex job ID to retry. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds that the action re-queues the job for an additional attempt and returns a status, but does not disclose side effects like triggering execution, auth requirements, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single sentence that packs the purpose, endpoint, and return value without wasted words. The key qualification ('failed or dead') is front-loaded and the response shape is included, making it highly scannable for an agent.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the operation, target resource, endpoint, and response format. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with job_id described as 'Cortex job ID to retry,' so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description reinforces this via the endpoint path (:id) but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema, matching the baseline.
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?
States a specific verb ('Re-queue'), a clear resource ('failed or dead Cortex job'), and the mechanism ('one more attempt'). The endpoint and return shape are included, making the tool's function unambiguous and easily distinguishable from siblings like cortex_get_job or cortex_list_jobs.
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 clearly scopes usage to failed or dead jobs and frames the tool as a retry operation, which gives an agent the context needed to select it over run/get/list siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.