Lists Dagster runs and filters them by job name or status such as SUCCESS, FAILURE, RUNNING, or CANCELLED, with page-size control for reviewing run history.
Liste des runs (optionnel : filtre par job et/ou statut, ex. SUCCESS, FAILURE, RUNNING, CANCELLED).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| job_name | No | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a listing operation, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, result limits, or other behavior around retrieval beyond the optional filters.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. It contains no redundant or wasted text.
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?
The tool has three parameters and no annotations, and although an output schema exists, the description omits page_size and does not explain pagination or filtering semantics beyond basic status examples. For a list tool with 0% schema description coverage, this leaves too much undocumented.
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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains filtering by job and status and gives example status values, but it does not mention the page_size parameter at all, leaving a significant semantic 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 states a specific verb and resource: listing runs, with optional filtering by job and/or status. It clearly distinguishes this from detail-oriented siblings such as dagster_run_detail, though it does not explicitly mention sibling tools.
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?
The intended use is implied by 'Liste des runs' and the described optional filters. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when dagster_run_detail would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.