Get one run by id — full status, output text, asset URLs, impact and audience scores, and any error. Poll this after create_campaign or render_asset until status is terminal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The run id returned by create_campaign, render_asset, or list_runs. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / run_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The run id returned by create_campaign, render_asset, or list_runs."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond that by revealing polling semantics and the response contents, including terminal-status tracking and error exposure. This is useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists returned data, and closes with actionable polling guidance. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return fields. It conveys the object, scope, usage trigger, and stopping condition, making it complete enough for correct invocation and polling.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by id' and does not explain run_id format, source, or constraints beyond the schema's type string. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides almost no additional semantic value.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'one run by id' and enumerates what is returned: full status, output text, asset URLs, impact/audience scores, and any error. This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_runs.
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?
Explicitly instructs when to call it: poll after create_campaign or render_asset until status is terminal. It gives clear contextual usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.