docflow-mcp

Docflow Retry Files

docflow_retry_files

Retry document processing for files that failed recognition. Submit workspace ID and task IDs to reattempt the operation and recover from errors.

Instructions

Retry processing for files that failed (POST /file/retry). Use when recognition_status=2 (failed).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "task_ids": "<task_ids>"
    },
    "name": "docflow_retry_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_ids`	Yes
`workspace_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the endpoint and the failure-state trigger, but does not explain side effects of retrying (whether extraction re-runs, whether calls are idempotent, or what happens to already-processed files).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the action and trigger condition front-loaded. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 not be described. However, both required parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and there are no annotations, leaving a moderate gap for an otherwise simple 2-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never explains what task_ids or workspace_id represent. An agent can only weakly infer that task_ids identify the failed file-processing jobs, and workspace_id is entirely unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retry processing for files that failed') plus the exact trigger condition (recognition_status=2), and names the HTTP endpoint (POST /file/retry). The 'files' target clearly differentiates it from the sibling retry tools docflow_retry_review_task and docflow_retry_review_rule.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an explicit 'Use when recognition_status=2 (failed)' condition, which is clear usage context. It stops short of listing when not to use it or explicitly naming the review-retry siblings as alternatives, so it misses the top tier.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server