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=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema: API key authentication and the privacy guarantee that a missing principal or an unowned run cannot leak another agent's score or gold. This is useful behavioral disclosure for a read operation.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and each sentence earns its place. The second sentence adds a meaningful security/privacy clarification without unnecessary detail.
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 and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned ('status and score breakdown') and the access rules, though it could more explicitly connect run_id to benchmark_start_run as the source of the UUID.
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 coverage is 100%, with both run_id and agent_id already described in the input schema. The description reinforces that the run must belong to the caller, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('status and score breakdown for one of YOUR runs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like benchmark_start_run or benchmark_submit_answers. The 'YOUR runs' scope is explicit and prevents confusion with broader list/finalize tools.
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 the tool is for reading results of runs the caller owns, and mentions the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as benchmark_finalize_run or benchmarks_list, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.