Fetch the current state of an execution by ID: status (PENDING_APPROVAL|QUEUED|RUNNING|RETRYING|SUCCEEDED|FAILED), attempts, the target response on success, or a classified error on failure. Retryable failures need no action from you — klanex is still retrying. Header values always read back REDACTED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution_id | Yes | the execution ID (exe_...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses return contents, includes the retry behavior ('klanex is still retrying'), and explicitly notes that header values are always REDACTED, which is crucial context for interpreting results.
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?
Three dense sentences pack in purpose, return values, statuses, retry behavior, and redaction. Every sentence earns its place; the most critical info (fetch state by ID) is front-loaded.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all essential return fields and behaviors. It explains statuses, attempts, success/error responses, retry semantics, and redaction, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.
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% for the single parameter, with 'execution_id' described as 'the execution ID (exe_...)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 opens with a clear verb 'Fetch' and specific resource 'current state of an execution by ID', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools. It also enumerates exactly what is returned (status, attempts, response/error), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 usage context: when you have an execution ID and need its current state. It explicitly guides on retryable failures ('no action from you'), which is a valuable usage rule. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_executions or replay_execution, though the 'by ID' phrasing makes the distinction clear.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute creates executions, get_execution reads one, list_executions lists them, replay_execution re-runs them, get_usage reports account usage, and list_connections manages credentials. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution. The only tool without a noun is 'execute', but it is the primary verb and fits the imperative style consistently.
Six tools is well-scoped for an HTTP execution management server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the lifecycle (create, read, list, replay, usage, credentials) without redundancy or bloat.
The core execution workflow is well covered: submit, fetch, list, replay, plus account usage and credential listing. A minor gap is the absence of explicit tools for approval actions (given the PENDING_APPROVAL status) or connection management beyond listing, but these are arguably external concerns.