get_run_statusCheck whether a Darkmoon run is running, completed, in error, or unknown, and return its event count with the five most recent events using the run ID.
Report whether a Darkmoon run is 'running', 'completed', 'error' or 'unknown' (run log not found), with the event count and the 5 most recent events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The run_id returned by run_pentest |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the exact return payload: the status vocabulary plus event count and 5 most recent events. It also explains the 'unknown' edge case as 'run log not found', which is a genuine failure-mode disclosure beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause earns its place by specifying the return content and the edge-case state. No filler.
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 simple one-param status-check tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it names the states and the events returned. The main gap is the polling/usage workflow and any freshness semantics, which the description omits.
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 coverage is 100% and the single run_id parameter is fully documented there as the value returned by run_pentest. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ("Report") and resource (Darkmoon run status) and enumerates the four possible states the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like run_pentest or get_findings, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any mention that it is typically used to poll after run_pentest finishes. The only hint of context ('run_id returned by run_pentest') lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.