Extend MCP

Get (or wait on) an edit run

get_edit_run

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the state and output of an edit run (edit group) — resume a status: "running" run or inspect a failed one. wait: true blocks until terminal or wait-budget expiry (call again to keep waiting). Edit runs have no list endpoint — keep the run ID. Follow any llmContext guidance included in results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No	Block until terminal or budget expiry. Default false.
`runId`	Yes	The run ID returned by edit_pdf.
`environment`	Yes	"TEST" = the Test (development) environment, "PRODUCTION" = live. Must match a granted target from get_me (an API key pins one environment).
`waitSeconds`	No	Max seconds to block waiting on the run (clamped to the server wait budget).
`workspaceId`	Yes	Target workspace (ws_...). Must be a granted workspace — get_me lists the accepted values.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes
`output`	No	Pointer to the filled PDF (PROCESSED only); the presignedUrl expires in ~15 minutes.
`status`	Yes	PROCESSING \| PROCESSED \| FAILED, or "running" (resume via the get tool).
`metrics`	No
`runType`	No
`llmContext`	No
`failureReason`	No
`failureMessage`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: wait blocking semantics, wait-budget expiry, calling again to continue waiting, and following llmContext guidance in results.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the key behavioral details. No filler; every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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?

With a full output schema, annotations, and this description, an agent has everything needed to invoke correctly: run lifecycle, wait behavior, no-list constraint, and output guidance. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces wait and runId semantics but does not significantly extend parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific operation—'Get the state and output of an edit run'—and identifies the exact resource ('edit run (edit group)'). It also names the intended scenarios (resume a running run, inspect a failed one), making it easy to distinguish from other get_*_run tools.

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?

The description provides clear use context: use it to poll a running run or inspect a failed one, and wait:true to block. It also warns that edit runs have no list endpoint so the run ID must be retained. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for edge cases, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

All Extend MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource+action combination, and the descriptions actively disambiguate potential overlaps (e.g., extract_data vs parse_document, detect_form_fields vs edit_pdf, get_file vs get_file_upload). The consistent verb_noun prefix pattern makes the semantic boundary of every tool immediately recognizable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant verb_noun pattern is highly consistent across all nine domains (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, run_*, get_*_run, get_*_batch, publish_*_version). Minor deviations exist: deploy_workflow_version vs publish_*_version for the same freeze-a-draft concept, and get_form_detection_run doesn't mirror its detect_form_fields counterpart.

Tool Count2/5

86 tools is a very heavy agent-facing surface, well past the 25+ threshold. The count is inflated by the near-identical 13-tool lifecycle repeated across extract, classify, and split (each with list/get/create/update/publish/runs/batches/versions), and while each tool has a distinct purpose, the sheer volume makes selection harder.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycles are thoroughly covered: create → update → publish → run (single and batch) → poll → cancel → delete-run → list runs/versions. Notable gaps include no delete tool for extractors, classifiers, splitters, workflows, or evaluation sets, and edit/form-detection runs have no list endpoint (documented workaround: keep run IDs). These are hygenic gaps that don't block primary workflows.

Resources

Need Help?