Retrieve an agent's runs newest first to review its turns, with pagination and a configurable limit for triaging cloud agent activity.
List runs (turns) for an agent, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Agent id | |
| limit | No | Max runs (default 20) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor |
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 discloses the ordering ('newest first') but says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior beyond the cursor param, rate limits, or whether runs can be empty. For a list tool with no annotations, more context is expected.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no wasted words. The ordering detail is included efficiently.
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 list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation. However, with no annotations and no other context, it leaves behavioral aspects like permissions and pagination edge cases unstated.
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%, so the schema already documents 'id', 'limit', and 'cursor'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and resource ('runs (turns) for an agent'), and clarifies that runs are turns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling 'get_run' or 'list_agents', though the 'for an agent' scope makes the target clear.
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 implied by the name and description (list runs for a given agent), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the alternative 'get_run' for fetching a single run. With 26 sibling tools, explicit routing would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.