Retrieve aggregated durable status and per-input job IDs for a slicing batch after reconnecting, so you can track queued jobs without losing progress.
Aggregate durable batch status and per-input job IDs after reconnecting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batch_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real substance, durability of the record and per-input job ID granularity after a reconnect, but leaves unclear whether an unknown or expired batch_id errors or returns empty, and implicitly (not explicitly) read-only 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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly dense wording ('aggregate durable') costs a small amount of clarity but 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?
An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and with one required parameter the surface is small. Still, for a no-annotation tool the description should say more about safety profile and behavior on stale or unknown batch IDs.
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 single batch_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate but only implies batch_id identifies the batch being aggregated. No format, origin, or valid-value guidance is given.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource: aggregates durable batch status plus per-input job IDs for a batch. The reader knows it returns status rather than mutating anything, but nothing distinguishes it from job_status, jobs_list, or job_wait.
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 phrase 'after reconnecting' implies a usage context (resuming observation of a batch after a dropped connection), but the description never states when this is preferable to job_status or jobs_list, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.