Skip to main content
Glama

Start a research run (billed)

start_run

Start a hosted deep-research run and return its id immediately. Billable, and the tier is the price: light ($9) answers one focused question or investigates a narrow topic; premier ($49, shown to people as "Deep") investigates a broader question across several research sections. Omitted, the tier is Light, the cheaper of the two — ask for premier by name when the question needs depth. No other tier can be started; asking for one is refused with 400 tier_not_offered. Track it with run_status and read run_result when done. Researching for a client or topic? Call list_projects first; if no project fits, call create_project, then pass its id as project_id on every run for that work. A filed run reuses the sources the project's earlier runs kept and tags every source it keeps project:<id> so search_notes({ project }) finds them; an unfiled run reuses nothing. To file a run you already started, use file_run. Pass idempotency_key to make retries safe. Pass levers.reader_expertise (beginner, intermediate or expert) to set who the report is written for, levers.purpose (decide, understand or brief_someone) to say what it is for, and levers.report_language (a language tag such as en, zh or ja) to set its language: they shape how the report is written and change nothing about the price, the sources or the run time. budget.fetch_usd_max, budget.sources_max, levers.inference_depth and levers.citation_style are deprecated: still accepted, but omit them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNoDepth and price: `light` ($9) answers one focused question or investigates a narrow topic; `premier` ($49, shown to people as "Deep") investigates a broader question across several research sections.light
queryYesThe research question, in full, as you want it answered.
budgetNoDeprecated spending caps: still accepted, omit them.
leversNoOptional settings for how the report is written. None of them change the price.
clarifyNoauto (the default for agents) starts at once on stated assumptions; ask waits in status "clarifying" for answer_clarification; off skips clarification.
profileNoTrade-off between cost, speed and quality.
project_idNoFile the run under this project (`proj_…` id from list_projects).
idempotency_keyNoAny unique string. Retrying with the same key returns the first result instead of charging again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the call is billable with concrete tier prices, that an unsupported tier is refused with 400 tier_not_offered, that idempotency_key makes retries safe, and the side effects of filing (source reuse and `project:<id>` tagging) versus unfiled runs. This is rich behavioral context the annotations alone do not provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Dense but well front-loaded: the core action, return value and billing lead, followed by tier choice, tracking, project filing and parameter notes. It is longer than most definitions but nearly every sentence carries actionable information; a slightly tighter grouping of the deprecated-parameter notes would help.

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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, nested objects and no output schema, the description covers billing, error behavior, follow-up tools, project filing semantics and deprecated parameters. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that levers shape wording only and never price/sources/run time, explains the default tier, and tells the agent that budget.* and two levers are deprecated but still accepted. That is more than restating field docs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a hosted deep-research run and return its id immediately'), and its scope is clearly distinguished from siblings like run_status, run_result, list_runs and file_run. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names alternatives and the conditions that select them: use run_status to track and run_result when done, call list_projects (then create_project) before filing work under a project, and use file_run for an already-started run. It also says when to pick premier over the default light.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources