Execute multiple CyberChef operations in batch with parallel or sequential modes, enabling partial success for complex data transformations.
Execute multiple CyberChef operations in batch (parallel or sequential mode). Supports partial success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Execution mode | parallel |
| operations | Yes | Array of operations to execute |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive=true and readOnly=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a mutating batch operation. It adds 'supports partial success,' which is useful, but does not explain failure semantics, side effects, ordering guarantees, or what happens to partially completed batches.
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?
The description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key nuance of partial success. Every part earns its place with no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns, how results are reported, how failures are surfaced, or how partial success manifests. For a batch execution tool with destructive potential, an agent needs more behavioral context to invoke it correctly and interpret results.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, and both properties have descriptions. The description mentions parallel/sequential mode, but the schema already documents the enum and default, so the description adds minimal new meaning beyond the structured data.
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 clearly states the tool executes multiple CyberChef operations in batch and identifies the two execution modes. It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools that handle single operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with recipe_execute or bake.
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 'execute multiple operations in batch' implies this tool is for grouping operations rather than calling them one at a time, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as recipe_execute, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.