get_task_runsRecent runs of one scheduled task: what it returned, whether the result changed, and measured platform cost metadata. User charge is $0.00.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many recent runs, max 20, default 5. | |
| task_id | Yes | From create_task or list_tasks. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context about the payload (returned value, change flag, platform cost metadata) and explicitly states the user charge is $0.00. It does not contradict annotations and supplies behavioral details beyond the structured fields.
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?
Description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every phrase adds value. It avoids repetition of schema or annotation fields and ends with the cost note that is directly useful for decision-making.
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?
With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be improved by an explicit usage guideline or mention of the need for a valid task_id, but nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'recent runs' and 'one scheduled task' loosely maps to limit and task_id but adds no format, constraints, or semantics 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 phrase 'Recent runs of one scheduled task' and enumerates the returned information (return value, change status, cost metadata), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_tasks (which lists tasks) and create_task/delete_task (which mutate tasks). The title reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.
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 for inspecting a specific task's output, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_tasks or mention prerequisites such as obtaining a task_id from create_task/list_tasks. The parameter schema provides task_id provenance, but the description itself offers no direct alternatives or exclusions.
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 task lifecycle tools (create_task, delete_task, get_task_runs, list_tasks) are clearly distinct, and china_reachability is a direct one-off measurement while what_can_you_do is a meta helper. The only mild ambiguity is that create_task can create a watch_reachability schedule, which overlaps conceptually with china_reachability, but the descriptions clarify one-off versus scheduled.
create_task, delete_task, get_task_runs, and list_tasks follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but china_reachability is a noun-phrase measurement tool and what_can_you_do is an idiomatic helper phrase. The set is readable but mixes naming conventions.
Six tools is well-scoped for a scheduled-task server covering creation, deletion, listing, run inspection, a direct reachability check, and self-help. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious bloat or thinness.
The core scheduled-task lifecycle is covered: create, list, inspect runs, and delete. However, there is no update_task or pause/resume capability, so changing a task's schedule or configuration requires deleting and recreating it, which also loses run history. That is a notable operational gap.