storm_batchRun several read-only storm-re tools in a single request to resolve symbols, inspect functions, compare builds, and query cached reverse-engineering facts; export and bulk operations are excluded.
Run several read-only storm-re tools in one call. Excludes export and batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calls | Yes | ||
| stop_on_error | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully confirms the read-only constraint and exclusion list, but says nothing about error behavior despite a stop_on_error parameter, nor about result aggregation.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. Efficient, though the exclusions clause would be more useful if it named accepted tools rather than just forbidden ones.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a batch dispatcher the critical missing piece is how to construct the calls array and what stop_on_error does. With 0% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent unable to invoke it 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 0% and the 'calls' array items are untyped objects, so the description needed to explain the shape of each call entry and the meaning of stop_on_error. It does neither, leaving the single most important input for this tool entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('run several read-only storm-re tools in one call'), which clearly marks it as an aggregator distinct from the single-purpose siblings. It also names exclusions ('export and batch'), though it never clarifies which of the ~20 storm_* siblings are actually permitted.
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?
The 'Excludes export and batch' clause gives partial when-not guidance but no explicit when-to-use framing or named alternative (e.g. 'use storm_explain for a single tool'). Usage must be inferred from the batch nature of the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.