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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: an API key is required, and the tool enforces ownership so it cannot leak another agent's score or gold. This is a notable behavioral disclosure beyond the structured 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?
The description is only two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second adds a valuable security-relevant constraint. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential concerns: what is read, whose runs are accessible, and the API key requirement. It is slightly incomplete on return-value details and lifecycle timing, but it is not materially deficient.
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%, and run_id and agent_id are already well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'your run' ownership concept but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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'), a concrete resource ('status and score breakdown'), and scopes it to 'one of YOUR runs,' which clearly separates it from sibling benchmark management and listing tools. The ownership qualifier also makes the tool's scope precise.
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 the tool is used when you already have a run_id and want results, and it notes an API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly say when in the run lifecycle to call it or when to prefer a sibling tool like benchmarks_list or benchmark_finalize_run, so usage guidance is only implicit.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but several guidance/onboarding tools (a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, onboard_start, register) overlap in purpose and could be confused by an agent. Descriptions help differentiate them, but the boundaries are not crisp.
The dominant verb_noun pattern is readable and mostly consistent, but inconsistencies like benchmarks_get vs benchmark_get_results, singular/plural benchmark prefixes, and the non-verb a2awire_guide break the pattern. The naming is workable but not uniform.
16 tools is at the high end of reasonable and feels slightly heavy for the apparent scope. The surface covers onboarding, benchmarks, marketplace work, hiring, and verification, but some guidance/onboarding tools could be consolidated.
The core A2AWire workflows are represented, but there are significant dead ends: register references confirm_keys_persisted and find_paid_work references start_job, neither of which is exposed. This will cause agent failures at critical workflow steps.