batch_http_probeProbe up to 20 authorized HTTP(S) URLs concurrently to fetch metadata, with per-target error handling and optional redirect following.
Fetch metadata for up to 20 authorized HTTP(S) URLs with bounded concurrency and per-target errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | ||
| follow_redirects | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| errors | Yes | ||
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior beyond them: bounded concurrency, per-target error isolation (one failure doesn't abort the batch), and an authorization precondition. Redirect handling is not mentioned in the description but is defaulted in the schema.
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 batch limit, resource type, and error/concurrency behavior are all packed in without redundancy.
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 values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, concurrency, error semantics and auth, leaving only redirect behavior unaddressed (and that is defaulted in the schema), so it is nearly complete for a batch probe tool.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds 'HTTP(S)' item semantics and the authorization precondition for urls, but 'up to 20' merely restates maxItems and follow_redirects (default true) is never addressed in either schema or description.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Fetch metadata for ... HTTP(S) URLs') with batch scope made explicit by 'up to 20', which separates it from the single-target http_probe sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative, but an agent can identify it as the batch variant from the name and description alone.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'up to 20' batch framing suggests using this when multiple URLs must be probed, and 'authorized' signals a precondition. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to http_probe for single-target cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.