load_runOpen one recorded execution by run id: planned versus actual start, end and duration for every step, what ended each step (a person, a timer, an abort), time the clock was paused, and the recorded variance factors. Use it to see where a plan drifts from reality. Requires a login token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Your Rhylthyme access token from the login tool | |
| run_id | Yes | The run UUID from list_runs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the exact data contents returned and the need for a login token. There is no contradiction with the 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 primary purpose, then a colon-delimited list of returned data, then usage context and a requirement. Every phrase earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.
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?
For a read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data will be returned and the prerequisite token. It does not cover error cases or edge scenarios, but for a simple retrieval operation, this is not critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (token and run_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'Requires a login token' reinforces the token requirement but adds little beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 function: opening a single recorded run by ID, and enumerates the specific data returned (planned vs. actual timings, step endings, pauses, variance factors). This distinguishes it from list_runs (which lists runs) and load_program (which loads a program), making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
It provides a clear usage context: 'Use it to see where a plan drifts from reality.' It implies that run_id comes from list_runs (via the schema) and mentions the login token requirement. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool appropriately.
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.