Hook Detector

list_runs

Your research runs, newest first, without their results, limit 1 to 100 (default 20) per page. Each run says its kind: "short" (find_hooks), "long" (find_long_hooks) or "packaging" (find_packaging); pass kind to list only one. Returns {"runs": [...], "next_cursor"}: pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page; it is null on the last. Same shape as GET /v1/runs. Next step: open one with get_run, or download it with export_run. Free. Errors: 422 invalid_cursor for a cursor this API did not issue, 422 for a kind that is not one of the three.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	only runs of this kind: short, long or packaging; leave out for every kind
`limit`	No	page size, 1 to 100
`cursor`	No
`api_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / kind

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "only runs of this kind: short, long or packaging; leave out for every kind",
+  "title": "Kind"
+}

First observedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses ordering (newest first), pagination contract (next_cursor passed back as cursor, null on last page), cost ('Free'), and error behavior (422 invalid_cursor, 422 for an invalid kind). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a list operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core behavior and efficiently packs kind mapping, return shape, pagination and errors. It is dense but largely earns its length; the 'Same shape as GET /v1/runs' line is the only clause of marginal value to an agent.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a paginated list tool with four params and an output schema, the description covers ordering, filtering, pagination, cost and failure modes, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

At 50% schema coverage the description compensates by explaining kind values, the 1-100 limit range with default 20, and cursor semantics. The api_key parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Your research runs, newest first'), scoping detail ('without their results') and enumerates the three run kinds. An agent can distinguish this listing tool from get_run/export_run without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly guides filtering ('pass kind to list only one') and names the next tools ('open one with get_run, or download it with export_run'). It does not, however, contrast itself against the sibling admin_list_runs, so the routing against other list tools is left implicit.

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

All Hook Detector tools Inspect

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

Need Help?