download_bulk_resultsRetrieve completed bulk screenshot job results by UUID, returning one row per URL with status, hosted screenshot link, and error details.
Downloads the results of a finished bulk screenshot job by uuid: one row per URL with its status, the hosted screenshot URL, and any error message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Job uuid returned when the bulk job was submitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (one row per URL with status, hosted screenshot URL, error message) and the prerequisite that the job must be finished. It omits permissions, delivery mechanism (file vs. inline payload), and behavior on incomplete/expired jobs.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return detail. No filler, every clause earns its place.
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?
Since there is no output schema, describing the row structure is essential and is done here; the job-completion prerequisite is also covered. The main residual gap is whether 'downloads' yields a file/artifact or a JSON payload, which an agent would want to know before calling.
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% and the single uuid parameter is already documented as the job uuid from submission. The description only reinforces 'by uuid' and adds no format, example, or validation detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource (downloads the results of a bulk screenshot job) and specifies the input that identifies it (uuid). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_bulk_status (status check) and bulk_screenshots (job submission).
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 'finished bulk screenshot job' tells the agent this is only applicable after completion, implying get_bulk_status as the prior step. However, it never names that sibling or states explicitly what to do if the job isn't finished, so routing is inferred rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.