Fetch a run's current status, summary, pending approvals, and (once settled) the agent's final reply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | A run id (trun_...). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| result | No | ||
| reused | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| chat_id | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| task_name | No | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| started_at | No | ||
| completed_at | No | ||
| error_message | No | ||
| credits_consumed | No | ||
| pending_approval_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the final reply is only available 'once settled', and pending approvals are included until then. This clarifies the tool's behavior across a run's lifecycle, which the annotations do not convey.
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 sentence, approximately 18 words, front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch a run's current status') followed by a compact enumeration of return components. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.
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 description is complete for a single-parameter, read-only tool. It names all relevant output categories (status, summary, pending approvals, final reply) and the lifecycle condition ('once settled'), while the output schema covers return-value details. 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter run_id, and the schema already documents it as 'A run id (trun_...).' The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Fetch') applied to a specific resource ('a run') and enumerates the exact data returned: status, summary, pending approvals, and the agent's final reply. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_runs (which lists runs) and wait_for_run (which waits rather than fetches a snapshot).
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 implies a one-shot retrieval of a run's current state, which contrasts with wait_for_run and list_runs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The condition 'once settled' hints at lifecycle timing, but no direct usage guidance or exclusions are given.
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.
The direct API tools (api_search/api_execute) are clearly distinct from the agent workflow tools. The main ambiguity is between ask_crevio and start_chat, since both initiate agent runs, though one waits and the other does not.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_runs, get_run, send_message, cancel_run). The api_ prefix on api_execute/api_search and the lowercase whoami are minor deviations from an otherwise consistent convention.
14 tools is well-sized for a server that combines direct REST API access with an agent run/chat lifecycle. Each tool has a distinct role and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
The REST surface is fully covered through api_search and api_execute, and the agent lifecycle is complete: start, continue, ask, wait, list, approve, cancel, and inspect runs/chats/messages. No critical operation appears to be missing.