Extend MCP

Get (or wait on) a split run

get_split_run

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the state and output of a split run (split 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). 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 split_document or list_split_runs.
`detail`	No	"concise" (default): status, output, failure fields, dashboardUrl. "full": adds config, confidence/citations, usage, timestamps.
`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
`file`	No
`runId`	Yes
`output`	No	Typed segments with page ranges (PROCESSED only).
`status`	Yes	Terminal status, or "running" (resume via the get tool).
`runType`	No
`llmContext`	No
`dashboardUrl`	No
`failureReason`	No
`failureMessage`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable extra context: wait blocks until terminal or budget expiry, repeated calls continue waiting, and llmContext guidance in results should be followed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by targeted wait behavior and a notable open-world instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a polling-style read tool, the description clearly covers the wait loop, terminal/budget timeout, and result-related guidance. The rich schema and output schema carry most parameter and return-value detail, leaving only minor ambiguity about what 'terminal' means in this context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds operational nuance around wait behavior but does not materially expand per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific operation on a specific resource: 'Get the state and output of a split run'. This clearly differentiates it from list_split_runs and get_split_batch, and the parenthetical 'split group' plus running/failed statuses sharpen the scope further.

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 gives clear context for when to call: to continue waiting on a running run or inspect a failed one. It also explains wait-mode blocking and budget-expiry behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get/list tools.

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?