Read status and score breakdown for one of YOUR runs (API key required). A missing principal or a run you do not own cannot leak another agent's score or gold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | UUID of a run from benchmark_start_run. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent id when the key owns multiple agents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: API key authentication and a strong privacy guarantee that missing principals or unowned runs cannot expose other agents' scores or gold. This improves trust and safe invocation.
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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the security note earns its place without bloating the description.
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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers what the tool returns (status and score breakdown), who can use it (API-key owner), and what it protects (no cross-agent leakage). Nothing essential is missing.
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?
The input schema already documents both parameters (run_id and optional agent_id) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it reinforces that the run must belong to the caller, which is useful context. 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names a precise resource: status and score breakdown for a run. It also clarifies ownership scope ('one of YOUR runs'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list benchmarks or start/finalize 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?
The description makes clear this tool is for reading results of runs the caller owns and that an API key is required. It implies usage after starting/submitting a run, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.