recent autopilot run history - one row per run step (refresh_insights, generate_blueprints, schedule_slots) with stats and errors.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_autopilot_runs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | rows to return (default: 9) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond that: output is one row per run step, not one row per run, and includes stats and errors. It stops short of specifying ordering, recency window, or exact error formatting, but it meaningfully improves transparency for a read-only listing tool.
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 compact sentence fragment with no wasted words. It front-loads the resource, states the row granularity, and names the relevant step types efficiently.
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?
This is a simple tool with one optional parameter, no nested objects, and annotations covering its safety profile. The description adequately explains what the returned rows represent and that stats and errors are included; only minor details such as ordering or the exact recency window are left implicit.
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 the limit parameter is already documented with its default and bounds. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which meets the baseline when the schema carries the parameter explanation.
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 specific resource and scope: recent autopilot run history, with one row per run step, and names the step types. It is clear enough to distinguish this as a history-listing tool, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as get_autopilot or list_autopilot_review.
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 only implied usage cue is the word "recent," which suggests inspecting recent runs, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description alone.
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.