List the workspace's recent generation runs (newest first): status, brief, channel, asset URLs, and audience scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many runs to return, 1 to 50. Newest first. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns recent runs, in newest-first order, with specific fields like status, brief, channel, asset URLs, and audience scores. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then lists the returned fields. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
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, has strong annotations, and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It covers the main behavior, ordering, and scope. The only notable gap is the omitted semantics of the limit parameter, but the tool is otherwise adequately specified.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description carries the burden of explaining the limit parameter. However, it does not mention limit at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name and default value. The schema provides minimal structural info, but the description adds nothing about how limit affects results.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the workspace's recent generation runs'), includes the ordering ('newest first'), and names the key fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_run, which retrieves a single run.
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 makes it clear this is for viewing recent runs as a collection, which is distinct from get_run for individual run details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.