Fetch a run and its entries. The owner can read an open or sealed run (pass api_key); a sealed run is also publicly readable by id and reports whether its signature is valid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The run_id to fetch. | |
| api_key | No | Optional: your Bidda key, required to read your own still-open run. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes beyond by disclosing that sealed runs are publicly readable by id and that the tool reports signature validity. This adds important behavioral context regarding access control and output details, which is valuable 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and includes necessary access and behavior details. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage without redundancy or filler.
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?
Given no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (run and entries) and even mentions signature validity reporting, which is a key part of the return. It doesn't elaborate on structure or error cases, but for a simple fetch operation with two parameters, this is sufficiently complete.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the api_key parameter by explaining it's needed for owners to read open/sealed runs, while sealed runs are publicly readable without it. This clarifies the practical use of the parameter beyond the schema's simple 'required to read your own still-open run' description.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch a run and its entries.' This uses a specific verb (fetch) and resource (run with entries), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_run and seal_run which are lifecycle operations. The additional detail about open/sealed runs and ownership further clarifies the scope.
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 gives clear context on when to use the tool and how to handle api_key for open vs sealed runs. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the ownership and public/private distinctions provide enough guidance for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
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 have clearly distinct purposes. The few overlapping pairs (get_node vs consult_node, get_latest_changes vs obligation_deltas) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, so an agent should be able to select correctly. No tools appear to do the same thing.
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_node, create_attestation, seal_run). However, several tools deviate significantly: drift_check and gap_check put the noun first, obligation_deltas is a bare noun, and point_in_time and oscal_assessment_results are noun phrases without a verb. This inconsistency makes the set feel less predictable.
At 25 tools, this is at the heavy end of the range. However, the tool set covers a very broad compliance intelligence domain, including discovery, compliance checks, run management, attestations, and change feeds. Each tool has a clear role, but the sheer number may overwhelm agents that need only a subset of functionality.
The tool surface is very comprehensive for a compliance intelligence platform. It covers discovery (browse, search, list, get), action compliance checking, jurisdiction comparison, dependency analysis, change tracking, run ledger management, attestation creation, and evidence export. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.