Fetch a Dagster run by ID to inspect its status, job, tags, metadata, and each step's state.
Détail d'un run Dagster (id du run) : statut, job, tags, métadonnées de run et état de chaque step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
| 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 more burden. 'Détail' strongly implies a read-only lookup, and it lists returned content, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling for invalid run ids, or permission requirements. Because an output schema exists, listing return fields is helpful context but not essential behavioral disclosure.
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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists returned fields. It is efficiently sized for a simple detail tool, though the line break is slightly awkward.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description redundantly enumerates them. For a one-parameter read tool this is mostly adequate, but missing sibling routing and explicit read-only/error behavior leaves gaps given the absence of annotations.
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% for the sole parameter. The description's parenthetical '(id du run)' reaffirms that run_id identifies the run, but it adds no format, constraints, or examples beyond what the parameter name already conveys. It minimally compensates for the schema 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 resource ('run Dagster') and operation ('détail') with the required identifier, and enumerates what detail is exposed (statut, job, tags, metadata, step states). It implicitly distinguishes itself from dagster_list_runs by being a detail lookup, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for retrieving one run once a run_id is known, likely after dagster_list_runs. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling list/overview tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.