Execute a compiled recipe to produce a RESULT line. Process multiple inputs at once, or read only Scout's cache to avoid new requests.
Run a compiled recipe. Reply with the RESULT line. inputs runs it over many inputs (one RESULT line each);
cached=true reads only Scout's copy of the site, sending no request (use after cache).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | ||
| cached | No | ||
| inputs | No | ||
| recipe | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that cached=true sends no request and reads Scout's copy, and that `inputs` yields one RESULT line per input — real behavioral detail. But it omits error behavior, whether the run mutates remote state, auth/permission needs, and rate limits.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before parameter notes. Dense but every clause carries information; no padding.
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 and no annotations, so the description should do more. It hints at the return format ('RESULT line') but doesn't define it, describe failure modes, or resolve the input/inputs relationship — leaving real gaps for a 4-param execution tool.
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 coverage is 0% across 4 params, so the description must compensate. It explains `inputs` (batch) and `cached` (local read, no request) meaningfully, but leaves `input` (singular) versus `inputs` and the required `recipe` value unexplained, so half the parameters remain ambiguous.
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+resource: 'Run a compiled recipe.' This clearly separates it from the sibling 'compile' (which produces a recipe) and 'cache'. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast the sibling tools, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Gives a conditional usage hint for one parameter ('cached=true ... use after cache') and notes the batch mode for `inputs`, but never states when to choose `run` over `compile`/`cache`, nor any prerequisites for running a recipe. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.