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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those: API key requirements and the privacy guarantee that a missing principal or unowned run cannot leak another agent's score or gold. This is valuable security-scope disclosure that the annotations do not provide.
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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core operation and scope, and the second adds a security-relevant constraint. Every sentence 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 read-only tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete: it states what is read, the ownership scope, and the API-key requirement. It does not describe the exact return shape or possible statuses, but it does state the primary outputs (status and score breakdown), which is adequate without an output schema.
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%, so the schema already documents run_id and agent_id. The description reinforces the ownership and authorization aspect of run_id but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for fully documented schema parameters.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read status and score breakdown for one of YOUR runs.' It also distinguishes the tool by emphasizing ownership, which separates it from sibling tools like benchmarks_list that list benchmarks or benchmark_start_run that creates them.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the caller has a specific run_id and wants status or score details for their own run. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.
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 clearly distinct resources and actions, but the benchmark cluster is confusingly close: benchmarks_get, benchmarks_list, and benchmark_get_results could be mistaken for one another despite different purposes. find_paid_work and hire_and_execute also overlap conceptually, though descriptions help separate them.
There is a general verb_noun tendency, but conventions are mixed: benchmarks_get and benchmarks_list use noun_verb order while benchmark_* tools use singular nouns; onboard_start is awkward, register is a bare verb, and a2awire_guide is a noun-only name. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Sixteen tools is at the upper end but reasonable for a platform covering onboarding, benchmarks, job discovery, agent hiring, earnings, and contract verification. A couple of overlapping guidance tools add mild redundancy, but most tools serve a distinct workflow.
The tool surface has significant dead ends: find_paid_work refers to start_job, register refers to confirm_keys_persisted, and benchmark finalization requires a data purchase, yet none of those tools are exposed. Agents following documented flows will fail at these missing steps.