list_runsList workflow runs for this playbook. Runs isolate canvas artifacts and execution context. Read-only. There is no get_run; this list returns the run records. Use create_run to start isolated canvas context and list_canvas to see documents in a run. Pass playbook_id as the UUID or GUID of the playbook this call should target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playbook_id | Yes | UUID or GUID of the target playbook |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds helpful context about runs isolating canvas artifacts and execution context, and clarifies the absence of get_run, going slightly beyond the structured annotations.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains focused. The final sentence about playbook_id is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall structure is efficient and each other sentence adds useful context.
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?
Given a single required parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains what runs are, how they relate to canvases, and where to go for related operations.
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 100%, and playbook_id is already described as 'UUID or GUID of the target playbook.' The description mostly restates this, adding no new semantics beyond confirming the parameter's role.
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?
The description clearly states the action: 'List workflow runs for this playbook.' It distinguishes this from related tools by explicitly noting there is no get_run and pointing to create_run and list_canvas as different operations.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: use create_run to start isolated canvas context and list_canvas to see documents in a run. It also clarifies that there is no dedicated single-run getter, so list_runs is the way to retrieve run records.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity and action (e.g., delete_memory vs delete_skill vs delete_run), and even similar operations like read_memory vs search_memory vs get_memory_context have clearly differentiated purposes. The descriptions are detailed and explicitly cross-reference other tools to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, read_*, etc.), with plurals used uniformly for list operations (list_playbooks, list_runs, list_secrets). No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs; the naming is highly predictable and systematic.
With 48 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent set of domains (playbooks, personas, skills, memory, canvas, runs, secrets, MCP servers, and discovery). While this exceeds the typical 3-15 range, each tool serves a distinct and necessary function within the comprehensive playbook management scope, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for every entity type: playbooks, personas, skills (including versioning and rollback), memory (including hierarchical tasks and tiering), canvas (with locking and patching), runs, secrets (including rotation and usage), and MCP servers. Additionally, find_tools covers discovery for federated tools, leaving no apparent dead ends.