get_runLire statut, données, résultats des étapes et erreur éventuelle d’une exécution généraliste.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_run"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what a call returns — status, run data, per-step results and any error — which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover behavior on an unknown/expired id, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and immediately followed by the returned payload. Nothing is wasted, though a single unstructured clause leaves no room for the routing or parameter detail that is missing.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it explains what is retrieved. It is incomplete on the two things an agent still needs — how to source the run id and how this differs from sibling run tools.
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 0%: the single required parameter "id" has no description, no format note, and only maxLength 191. The description implies the id identifies a run but adds nothing about its form or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a specific verb ("Lire") and resource ("une exécution") and enumerates the fields retrieved: statut, données, résultats des étapes, erreur. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the many run-related siblings (list_runs, control_run, retry_workflow_run); "exécution généraliste" gestures at a distinction without making it.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. The agent is not told to use list_runs first to obtain an id, nor how this differs from control_run for the same run, so the choice among run tools is left entirely to inference.
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.