Generate an sbatch script to render an R Markdown file on a SLURM compute node, using the Rmd path and output directory.
Generate an sbatch script that renders an R Markdown file on a compute node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpus | No | ||
| No | |||
| rmd_path | Yes | Absolute path on the cluster | |
| walltime | No | 04:00:00 | |
| memory_gb | No | ||
| partition | No | Partition (default: cluster default) | |
| output_dir | Yes |
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=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the render targets a compute node, but it does not say whether a script is written to disk or merely returned, nor whether the job is submitted, which matters for a 'generate' tool.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return (script text vs. written file path) and the meaning of the five undocumented parameters. For a 7-param generator tool it leaves too much unstated.
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 29% (7 params), and only rmd_path and partition carry any schema text. The description adds nothing about cpus, memory_gb, walltime, email, or output_dir, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (generate) and resource (sbatch script that renders an R Markdown file), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings hpc_generate_sbatch and hpc_generate_rmd, leaving the agent to guess which generator applies.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings hpc_generate_sbatch and hpc_generate_rmd present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.