Fetch the current state of an execution by ID: status (PENDING_APPROVAL|QUEUED|RUNNING|RETRYING|SUCCEEDED|FAILED), attempts, the target response on success, or a classified error on failure. Retryable failures need no action from you — klanex is still retrying. Header values always read back REDACTED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution_id | Yes | the execution ID (exe_...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses retry behavior (no action needed for retryable failures) and that header values are redacted, which adds value beyond basic fetch. No annotations to compare.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.
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?
Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (status, attempts, target response, error), providing a complete picture for a fetch operation.
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 has 100% coverage with a description for execution_id, and the tool description adds minimal extra context (the 'exe_' prefix) beyond what schema already provides.
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?
Clearly states it fetches execution state by ID, lists possible statuses, and distinguishes from list/execute siblings by specifying single-ID retrieval.
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?
Implies usage for checking a single execution's status by ID, but does not explicitly specify when not to use or mention alternatives like list_executions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution. No overlapping functionality; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution). Naming is uniform and predictable.
Six tools cover the core functionality of an execution management server: initiating, checking, listing, replaying executions, plus managing connections and usage. This is well-scoped, not too few nor too many.
The tool set provides a complete lifecycle for asynchronous API execution: create (execute), check status (get_execution), list (list_executions), replay (replay_execution), manage credentials (list_connections), and monitor usage (get_usage). No obvious gaps for the stated domain.