List the workspace's generation runs (newest first): status, brief, channel, asset URLs, and caption. Page with offset to see them all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many runs to return, 1 to 50. Newest first. | |
| offset | No | Skip this many runs, to page back through every video and image the workspace has made. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Skip this many runs, to page back through every video and image the workspace has made.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"How many runs to return, 1 to 50. Newest first."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: newest-first ordering, the fields returned, and pagination behavior via offset. No contradictions 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence covers the action, resource, ordering, returned fields, and pagination guidance without wasted words. It is easy to scan and fully informative.
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?
For a read-only, idempotent list operation with an output schema, 100% schema-covered optional parameters, and rich annotations, the description is complete. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description reinforces paging with offset but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('workspace's generation runs'), ordering ('newest first'), and the returned fields. It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_films, list_media, and list_posts.
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?
The description gives clear usage context for listing generation runs and explicitly instructs paging with offset to retrieve all runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use it, but the resource scope is specific enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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.