Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasySourceFlow

EasySourceFlow

by john-ops-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

easysourceflow_submit_batch

Submit multiple public URLs for background summarization and receive a batch ID to check results later.

Instructions

Submit multiple public URLs for background processing and return a batch ID.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "easysourceflow_submit_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYesPublic URLs to process.
instructionNoShared summary instruction.
force_refreshNoIgnore cached results for every URL in the batch.
summary_qualityNoUse fast for the configured normal model, or pro for the configured strong model. Video links are automatically treated as pro.fast

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) provide basic behavioral clues. Description adds 'background processing' but lacks details on async behavior, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal value beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and output. No wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, description should explain return value (batch ID format) and async workflow. Missing guidance on how to retrieve results or check status, making it incomplete for effective use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema descriptions; it merely restates the purpose.

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?

Description clearly states verb (submit), resource (multiple public URLs), action (background processing), and output (batch ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_link (single link) and submit_document.

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?

Description implies batch use via 'multiple public URLs' but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. It is clear enough for its intended use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools