Report that a run ended, with status and evidence dict (name -> bool or {type:'url',url}). Green run without evidence alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost | No | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| tokens | No | ||
| evidence | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions one behavioral consequence ('Green run without evidence alerts') but does so ambiguously, and it omits output behavior, idempotency, failure cases, or side effects.
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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, which is good. However, the second sentence is cryptic ('Green run without evidence alerts') and needs more clarity to be genuinely useful, so not every sentence earns its place effectively.
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?
With five parameters, nested evidence objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It lacks guidance on return values, alert behavior, and how this endpoint fits into the overall run lifecycle.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the raw schema. It usefully explains the evidence dict format (name -> bool or {type:'url',url}), but it says nothing about cost, tokens, or the required run_id, leaving several parameters underspecified.
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 states a clear action — 'Report that a run ended' — with a specific resource and relevant payload (status and evidence). It is understandable in isolation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like runvouch_run_proof or runvouch_status.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus runvouch_run_start, runvouch_run_proof, or runvouch_status. The phrase 'Green run without evidence alerts' hints at a condition but does not clearly state when to use the tool or which alternative to prefer.
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.
Tools target distinct resources (alerts, runs, status, proofs), but runvouch_alerts and runvouch_status both surface open alerts, and runvouch_runs overlaps somewhat with runvouch_status's run-history display. Descriptions are specific enough to prevent serious misselection.
All tools share the runvouch_ prefix, but the style mixes bare verbs (runvouch_ack), noun lists (runvouch_alerts, runvouch_runs), and noun-verb compounds (runvouch_run_start, runvouch_run_end). The names are readable, but there is no single consistent verb_noun convention.
Seven tools is a well-scoped size for a run-vouching/alerting server. Each tool serves a clear operational purpose: starting/ending runs, retrieving proof/history, and managing alerts.
The core lifecycle is covered: start run, end run with evidence, retrieve proof, list runs, check status, list/ack alerts. Minor gaps exist such as no detailed alert/run getter or evidence modification, but agents can complete main workflows without dead ends.