Fetch details for up to 20 repositories in one concurrent, read-only request by passing an array of IDs or names.
Batch get repo details (concurrent GET, read-only, max 20). 详见 references/api/repo_api.md
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Repository IDs as array, e.g. [123,456] or ["group/repo-a","group/repo-b"] (required, max 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose read-only semantics, concurrency, and a batch cap, which is useful. However it omits partial-failure behavior (what happens if some IDs are invalid) and defers semantics to an external file 'references/api/repo_api.md' that isn't part of the tool definition.
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 compact sentence plus a pointer, front-loading the core operation and scope. Efficient, though the trailing file reference is a dangling pointer that doesn't earn much of its space.
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?
For a one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this covers the essentials (what, safety, cap). It is not complete about behavior under partial failure or about the resolution of string IDs vs numeric IDs, which matters for a batch call with no annotations.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the example formats ([123,456] or ["group/repo-a"]) already documented in the schema. The description repeats the max-20 constraint without adding format or id-resolution semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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 concrete verb+resource: batch retrieval of repo details, with a scope qualifier (max 20). It is distinguishable from yuque_get_repo (single) and yuque_list_repos, though it never explicitly names that contrast. Sibling differentiation is implicit 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?
There is no guidance on when to prefer this over yuque_get_repo or yuque_list_repos, nor any prerequisite/permission note. The only usage constraint given is the max-20 cap, which is also in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.