crashtestyourstrategy

Get a recorded run (manifest + stored response)

get_run

Read-onlyIdempotent

USE WHEN you want to see exactly how an earlier result was produced, or reproduce it. Returns the run manifest (tool, the arguments sent, the seed where the result has one, the data window, the release, the schema version) and the stored response of one earlier call, by request_id. Works for MCP and REST calls and needs no API token (a request_id is an unguessable capability). Entries recorded before manifests existed come back with tool and arguments marked unknown. Rerun with the same arguments to reproduce: seeds are fixed, so reruns are identical while the underlying data is unchanged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request_id`	Yes	request_id of an earlier response (a UUID), from any enveloped tool or the REST API.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that no API token is required because the request_id is an unguessable capability, that pre-manifest entries return tool and arguments as unknown, and that reruns are identical only while underlying data is unchanged. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the trigger clause and keeps the return description as a single enumerated clause. The manifest field list is dense but each item is informative; a couple of sentences run long but none are redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be documented, yet the description still summarizes the manifest contents and the legacy-entry edge case. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by framing the request_id as an authorization capability and noting it comes from any MCP or REST call. It does not add syntax beyond the schema's UUID note.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the run manifest ... and the stored response of one earlier call, by request_id') and enumerates manifest fields. This distinguishes it from the sibling analysis tools (stress tests, regime data, dossiers), which do not do provenance lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Leads with an explicit trigger: 'USE WHEN you want to see exactly how an earlier result was produced, or reproduce it.' That is a clear use case, but no alternative or exclusion is named (e.g., when to use a strategy history tool instead), so it stops short of 5.

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

All crashtestyourstrategy 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.