List agent runs this caller can read. Use agent_run_get to read messages inside one run.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "agent_run_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| agentId | No | ||
| startedVia | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond that: results are permission-scoped to what 'this caller can read'. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, default result count, ordering, or what happens when cursor is exhausted.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability stated first and the disambiguation second. Nothing redundant with the name or annotations.
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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description is too thin — an agent cannot infer valid filter combinations, pagination mechanics, or what a returned 'run' looks like. The routing hint to agent_run_get is helpful but does not compensate for the missing operational detail.
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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing — no mention of limit's 1-50 range or defaults, cursor semantics, valid status values, what agentId filters on, or the startedVia enum options (mcp/workflow/webhook/schedule). The only hint is the implicit list/pagination framing from the verb 'List'.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('List agent runs') and adds a scope qualifier ('this caller can read'). It also names the closest sibling, agent_run_get, and states what that sibling is for, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.
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?
It explicitly routes the agent: use this to list runs, use agent_run_get to read messages inside one run. That is a real when-to-use/when-to-use-the-other rule. It stops short of full guidance though — nothing about how filtering by status, agentId or startedVia changes the use case, and no exclusions beyond the single sibling.
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.