retry_messaging_messagesRetry failed JMS messages in SAP CPI via the RetryMessagingMessages function. Returns the server response for confirmation.
Retry failed JMS messages via the RetryMessagingMessages function import (POST). Returns the server response string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint: true, and the description adds only that it is a POST and returns a server response string. It does not disclose what 'retry' entails (e.g., whether it resends, clears, or duplicates messages), nor does it explain any side effects beyond the destructive hint. With a destructive operation, more behavioral context is needed.
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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that state the action and the return value. It avoids fluff, but it is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, missing opportunities to clarify behavior within the same length.
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?
The description lacks critical context for a destructive operation. It does not clarify what scope 'failed JMS messages' covers (all messages, a specific queue?), whether any prerequisites exist, or what the server response string signifies. Given the destructive nature, an agent would benefit from knowing the impact before calling.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema provides complete coverage. According to the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't.
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 action (retry), the target (failed JMS messages), and the mechanism (RetryMessagingMessages function import, POST). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_messaging_messages (retrieval) and move_messaging_messages (moving) by explicitly focusing on retrying failed messages.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where retry is appropriate, nor any exclusion criteria or mention of other tools for moving or fetching messages. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.