Agent Observatory Digital Twin

read_internal_runbook

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a generated operations runbook by project id or topic in the Northstar twin.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	Yes	A project id or runbook topic such as migration, export review, or session recovery.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes
`isolated`	Yes
`synthetic`	Yes
`digitalTwin`	Yes
`observation`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / topic / description

Added value: +"A project id or runbook topic such as migration, export review, or session recovery."

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "topic"
+]
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "digitalTwin": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "isolated": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "observation": {
+      "properties": {
+        "eventId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "evidenceLevel": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "policyAction": {
+          "enum": [
+            "allow",
+            "monitor",
+            "sandbox",
+            "deny"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "eventId",
+        "policyAction",
+        "evidenceLevel"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "synthetic": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "digitalTwin",
+    "synthetic",
+    "isolated",
+    "result",
+    "observation"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds mild context with "generated" and "in the Northstar twin," hinting at synthetic/non-production data, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or staleness of the runbook.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to carry usage guidance.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return values. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, missing only sibling differentiation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `topic` parameter is well documented with example values (migration, export review, session recovery). The description's "project id or topic" largely restates what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("a generated operations runbook") with the scoping selector ("by project id or topic"). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not contrast itself with any of its siblings like list_internal_projects or inspect_*.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_internal_projects or the inspect_* family. The input method (project id or topic) is implied but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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

All Agent Observatory Digital Twin 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?