globalize.now

Get a Workflow run

get_workflow_run

Read-only

Poll a Workflow run: its status and failure reason, translated and total strings per language, each Output’s delivery outcome, the pull request a GitHub Output opened, and the run’s page in the Globalize app. A "completed" run has finished translating; it does not mean the translations were delivered. Its Outputs deliver after it completes: check each Output’s outcome (null until it has run, then delivered, failed or skipped) before telling the user the translations are in place. When referring to a project or language in your reply to the user, use its name and locale (e.g. "French (fr-FR)") — ids (UUIDs) are for tool calls only, never show them to the user.

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": {
      "runId": "<runId>"
    },
    "name": "get_workflow_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	Yes	Run id, from start_workflow_run or list_workflow_runs

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Pass to get_workflow_run
`number`	Yes	`run #n`, numbered per Workflow from 1
`status`	Yes	pending, processing, held (at an approval Gate), completed, failed or superseded. completed means translated, not delivered: read `outputs`
`failure`	Yes	Why a failed run failed; null otherwise
`outputs`	Yes	Each Output of the pinned version and its delivery outcome
`trigger`	Yes
`createdAt`	Yes
`languages`	Yes	One per target language, once the run has split into languages; empty before
`updatedAt`	Yes
`runPageUrl`	Yes	The run’s page in the Globalize app
`workflowId`	Yes
`versionNumber`	Yes	The Workflow version the run pinned
`pullRequestUrl`	Yes	The pull request a GitHub Output opened or updated; null when none

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations: it explains the non-obvious meaning of the "completed" status, that Outputs deliver only after completion, and that `outcome` is null until an Output runs then becomes delivered/failed/skipped. That directly prevents a false success report to the user, which annotations alone cannot convey.

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-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the critical status caveat, then display guidance. Every sentence is doing work, though the closing name/locale formatting instruction is slightly tangential to invoking the tool and lengthens the block.

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 restated, yet the description usefully flags the semantic trap in the return data (completed vs delivered) that a schema cannot express. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it and interpret it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `runId` parameter already documents its UUID format and where to obtain it. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies; the caution about never showing UUIDs to users concerns output naming, not the parameter itself.

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 ("Poll a Workflow run") and enumerates exactly what comes back: status and failure reason, per-language translated/total strings, each Output's delivery outcome, the opened PR, and the run's app page. This clearly separates it from list_workflow_runs (which returns many runs) and start_workflow_run (which creates one).

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?

Gives clear usage context: it is a polling tool, "completed" means translation finished but not delivery, and the agent must check each Output's `outcome` before claiming translations are in place. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_workflow or list_workflow_runs, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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

All globalize.now 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.