list_runsList runs for a job (oldest first; the last entry is the latest run).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / data / items / properties / commit_hash / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / data / items / properties / error / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / data / items / properties / log_tail / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / data / items / properties / summary_diffAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the ordering behavior ('oldest first; the last entry is the latest run'), which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It does not contradict them.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the ordering detail without any waste. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter, an output schema (which covers return format), and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It states the purpose and ordering, and nothing critical is missing for an agent to call 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that job_id is the job for which runs are listed, giving some meaning beyond the bare string type. However, it does not provide format details, constraints, or examples, leaving the parameter under-documented.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'runs for a job', and adds ordering context ('oldest first; the last entry is the latest run'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_run (which likely handles a single run) and wait_for_run (which waits on a run).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_run or wait_for_run. It only states what the tool does without any context on selection criteria or exclusions.
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.