Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-coreclaw

by com.coreclaw.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

run_worker_task

Run a saved CoreClaw worker task.

WHEN TO USE: Use when the user wants to execute a configured task rather than supply ad-hoc worker input. 中文触发: 当用户要在 CoreClaw 中查询、运行、重跑、停止、导出或查看对应 worker/run/task 数据时使用。

WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use public web search or code search for private CoreClaw platform data. Do not call excluded internal worker-version or internal-detail APIs.

RETURNS: JSON with run_slug or synchronous result fields.

WORKFLOW: Follow with get_worker_run or get_last_worker_run, then result/export tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoResult limit. Example: 20. Must be 1-100. (default: 20)
offsetNoPage number, 1-based. offset=1 is page 1; offset=0 is accepted as page 1. (default: 1)
is_asyncNoWhether CoreClaw should run asynchronously. Example: true. Use false only for small synchronous runs. (default: true)
callback_urlNoCallback URL for asynchronous status updates. Example: "https://client.example.com/openapi/callback". (optional)
worker_task_idYesSaved worker task slug. Example: "task_daily_demo". Obtain from list_worker_tasks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / offset / default
      Previous value: -0New value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Previous value: -"Result offset. Example: 0. Must be 0 or greater. (default: 0)"New value: +"Page number, 1-based. offset=1 is page 1; offset=0 is accepted as page 1. (default: 1)"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds that it returns a run_slug and can be synchronous or asynchronous, and that it should be followed by result/export tools. This conveys the execution flow and side-effect potential. It stops short of detailing all behavioral nuances (e.g., callback semantics, resource usage), but since annotations already cover the core mutation nature, the added context is above average.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, RETURNS, WORKFLOW) and each sentence provides essential operational context. It avoids repetition and unnecessary details, earning a top score for clarity and efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and a complex execution action, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, expected return, and follow-up workflow. It lacks some depth on the actual execution side effects, but the workflow hint and return description make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including examples and defaults. The tool description itself doesn't add further parameter-level detail, only clarifying the primary parameter (worker_task_id) represents a 'saved' task. This is sufficient, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Run a saved CoreClaw worker task.' It distinguishes from siblings by stating this is for 'configured task rather than supply ad-hoc worker input,' and clarifies the return type ('run_slug or synchronous result fields'). This fully differentiates it from adjacent tools like run_worker.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections provide clear guidance, including the exact scenario (executing a configured task) and exclusions (no public web/code search for private data, no internal APIs). The 'WORKFLOW' section even suggests follow-up tools, giving an implementation path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-coreclaw toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources