Retrieve the status and results of a MinerU batch parsing job using its batch ID. Paginate through large result sets with offset and limit, and switch between concise and detailed output formats.
Get batch results. Supports pagination for large batches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| format | No | Output format | concise |
| offset | No | Skip first N results | |
| batch_id | Yes | Batch ID from mineru_batch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.6Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add that pagination is supported, but it does not say what the returned results look like, whether output is status information or extracted content, or how the format parameter affects the response.
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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Both sentences serve a purpose, though it is so brief that it sacrifices useful behavioral and contextual detail.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and several sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship to mineru_batch, the meaning of the 'format' enum values, or what the agent should expect in the response, making it incomplete for confident invocation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's pagination note reinforces limit/offset intent but adds little beyond what the schema's 'Max results to return' and 'Skip first N results' already convey.
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 states a clear action and resource: 'Get batch results.' It is distinct enough from the parser tools and from mineru_status, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from mineru_status or explain whether 'results' means output files, statuses, or both.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of mineru_status, mineru_download_results, or other siblings. The pagination note hints at large batches, but there is no explicit condition, prerequisite, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.