Execute a predefined orchestrator pipeline by name and immediately return a job ID for tracking; pass inputs, workspace path, and optional safety mode.
Execute a predefined pipeline by name. Returns a job ID immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | No | Input key-value pairs for the pipeline | |
| safety_mode | No | Safety mode override | |
| pipeline_name | Yes | Name of the pipeline to run (from orchestrator.yaml) | |
| workspace_path | No | Path to the workspace directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a job ID is returned immediately, implying async execution, but it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, safety_mode behavior, error handling, or what happens if the pipeline name is invalid. For an execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the immediate return behavior follows directly. Every sentence 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?
Given a 4-parameter execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain safety_mode semantics, workspace_path usage, input mapping, or how to track the returned job ID. The async detail is helpful but insufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that execution is "by name," reinforcing pipeline_name, and does not elaborate on inputs, safety_mode, or workspace_path. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: "Execute a predefined pipeline by name." An agent can understand the core action without opening the schema. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like start_swarm or invoke_session, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implies the tool is used to start execution of a predefined pipeline, and "Returns a job ID immediately" signals asynchronous behavior. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as start_swarm or invoke_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.