Starts a durable meshing job for a session at an expected revision and immediately returns a job ID for asynchronous tracking and later mesh inspection or export.
Start a durable meshing job and return its job ID immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dimension | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| request_key | Yes | ||
| expected_revision | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add two useful behavioral facts: the job is 'durable' and the call returns immediately with a job ID, implying an async pattern. However, it omits mutation/side-effect disclosure, permission needs, and the meaning of expected_revision/request_key for conflict and idempotency behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the essential action and the immediate-return behavior are stated first. Nothing is wasted.
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 four-parameter, annotation-free job-start tool with revision and idempotency keys, one sentence is insufficient. The output schema covers the return value, but the description omits prerequisites, conflict/stale-revision behavior, and request_key deduplication semantics that an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate, and it mentions none of them. session_id, expected_revision, and request_key are critical required inputs whose semantics (concurrency control, idempotency) are left entirely unexplained, as is the optional dimension.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a durable meshing job', and adds the key behavioral outcome 'return its job ID immediately'. It is clearly the async job-start operation in the mesh_* family, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like mesh_configure or mesh_grading_calculate.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus mesh_configure, mesh_grading_*, or when to prefer synchronous alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an active session. The phrase 'Start a durable meshing job' only implies usage; it does not state when/when-not or point to the follow-up tool (job_get).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.