Skip to main content
Glama

invoke_read_tool_batch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dispatch a batch of up to 25 read-only tool calls in one round trip, with each call processed sequentially and independently, returning ordered results with error handling for invalid or failed calls.

Instructions

Dispatch a bounded, ordered batch of read-only tool calls in one round trip.

Nornir-inspired bounded fan-out: each entry in calls is dispatched sequentially (no concurrency in this version -- deterministic ordering and rate-limit safety over throughput) through the identical read-only gate/response-bounding path invoke_read_tool itself uses. One call's failure never aborts the rest: every call gets its own ordered result entry plus rolled-up aggregate counts, never a raised exception and never a success-shaped failure. A write/destructive/unknown tool named in any entry is rejected for that entry alone and never reaches the backend (same gate as invoke_read_tool).

Args: calls: bounded (max 25) ordered list of call objects, each with required "name" (exact backend tool name from find_tool), optional "arguments" (object, default {}), optional "id" (caller-supplied correlation string, max 100 chars, unique within the batch -- defaults to the call's list index as a string), and optional "cursor" (an opaque next_cursor from a previous truncated single-call or batch-item read of this exact tool+arguments, resumed exactly like invoke_read_tool's own cursor argument). "arguments" is bounded to 20,000 serialized bytes and 8 levels of nesting per call -- an oversized/malformed call entry is rejected with status "invalid_call" before any dispatch is attempted for that entry, and never included in a validation-error message (so a secret placed in "arguments" is never echoed back). Duplicate ids reject the whole batch before any dispatch: correlating results by id is the point of supplying one, and silently returning two entries with the same id would make that impossible.

Rate limiting is charged per backend call, not per batch, so a 25-call batch draws 25 tokens from the same bucket a single invoke_read_tool call draws one from.

Returns "ok" (True only when every call in the batch succeeded -- never True while any failure exists), "results" (ordered list, one entry per call, each with "index", "id", "tool", "server", "status" -- one of "ok", "error", "blocked", "unknown_tool", "invalid_cursor", "invalid_call" -- and either "result" (on "ok") or "error" (bounded to 500 characters, otherwise)), "counts" ("total"/"succeeded"/ "failed"), "failed_ids" and "failed_indexes" (both ordered, one entry per failed call), and "truncated" (True when the response had to be shrunk to fit the configured byte budget -- CENTRALMCP_ROUTER_BATCH_RESPONSE_MAX_BYTES, default 300000). Each item additionally gets its own share of that budget while dispatching, so no single call can consume the whole batch's budget. The returned response is strictly within budget.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds detail: sequential dispatch (no concurrency), per-call rate limiting, failure isolation (never aborts rest), and budget handling. This adds context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is comprehensive but lengthy. It is well-structured with paragraphs and bullet points, but could be more concise. Some detail, like the budget explanation, could be shortened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (batch, validation, rate limiting, budget), the description is thorough. It covers behavior, validation, response structure, and edge cases. Output schema exists, so return values are sufficiently documented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% at the top level, but the description explains each field within the batch call: name, arguments, id, cursor, with bounds (max 25 calls, argument size, nesting). It adds meaning beyond the schema's inline descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it dispatches a bounded, ordered batch of read-only tool calls. It uses specific verbs like 'dispatch' and 'batch', and contrasts with the single-call sibling invoke_read_tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains when to use: for multiple read-only calls to reduce round trips. It notes sequential dispatch and failure handling. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use, but the read-only hint and mention of write rejection imply exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/secure-ssid/centralmcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server