autosearch_list_my_runs
List the authenticated user latest research runs with status and frontier score.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
autosearch
by uk.exatoshi
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'latest' but does not specify how runs are ordered (e.g., by creation date) or if there are any side effects. Missing details on pagination, filtering, or what 'status' and 'frontier score' represent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose without extraneous words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate high-level purpose. However, it lacks details on return structure, sorting, and precision of 'latest'. The absence of an output schema places more burden on the description, which is only partially fulfilled.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, limit, is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides (default 20, max 100). This is a significant gap.
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?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (runs), the scope (authenticated user's latest), and the included fields (status and frontier score). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like autosearch_get_run_paper.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context signals list siblings, but the description does not differentiate usage scenarios, e.g., when to use list vs get_run_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct and clearly separated purpose: launching, status checking, listing runs, retrieving papers, searching evidence, and verifying DOIs. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'autosearch_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, with verbs like get, list, run, search, verify. The prefix is uniform, making the set predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers the essential operations for AI research automation without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the core workflow of launching, monitoring, retrieving results, and auxiliary searches. Missing operations like canceling or deleting runs, but the surface is largely complete for typical use.