parserail_classifyAssign text to your custom labels with a confidence score and one-line rationale. Supports single or multiple tags for precise routing.
Route or tag text against your own taxonomy, a label, a confidence, and a one-line rationale. Costs credits from the account wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| multi | No | Allow multiple labels. | |
| labels | Yes | ||
| instructions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a useful behavioral note—'Costs credits from the account wallet'—and names the output fields. Annotations already cover the read-only/destructive profile, so the description does not need to restate that; it could still say more about model behavior or the meaning of 'route'.
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 sentences, both purposeful: the first states the action and outputs, the second adds cost. The list in the first sentence is slightly awkward and ambiguous, but there is no dead weight.
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?
For a simple classification tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core inputs, output shape, and credit cost. However, missing sibling differentiation and the unexplained `instructions` parameter leave real gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 only 25% (multi is the sole documented parameter). The description adds that labels form the caller's taxonomy, but it never explains the `instructions` parameter, and `text` remains implicit; this does not adequately compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 names the action ('Route or tag') and resource ('text'), and clarifies that it uses a caller-supplied taxonomy and returns a label, confidence, and rationale. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling parserail_categorize, so it stops 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?
No usage guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. 'Against your own taxonomy' hints that it fits custom classification needs, but it never states when to choose this over parserail_categorize, parserail_triage, or other classification-adjacent siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.