Retrieve a run's full provenance record—workflow, environment and package versions, step parameters, inputs, outputs, and cache key—or list recent runs when no run ID is provided.
Full provenance record of a run (resolved workflow, environment and package versions, every step's params, inputs, outputs and cache key). With no run_id, lists recent runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the two most important behavioral facts: this is a record-retrieval read, and omitting run_id silently switches the tool into a recent-runs listing mode rather than erroring. It stops short of describing behavior for an unknown run_id or any auth/scoping constraints.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose and record contents front-loaded and the mode-switch rule placed last where it reads as a qualifier. Every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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-shape detail is not the description's job, and the dual-mode behavior plus record contents cover the essentials for a one-parameter read tool. What is missing is failure behavior for an invalid run_id and any mention of result volume or pagination for the listing mode.
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 0% for the single run_id parameter, so the description must supply meaning — and it does: the parameter's presence selects single-run lookup, its absence selects recent-runs listing. The only gap is that no format or example for run_id is given.
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 specifies both the verb (retrieve a full provenance record) and the resource (a run), and enumerates what the record contains (resolved workflow, environment/package versions, per-step params/inputs/outputs/cache key). It is clearly not list_artifacts or list_operations, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from those siblings.
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 second sentence usefully explains the no-argument fallback ('lists recent runs'), which is real usage guidance for the optional parameter. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over describe_operation, inspect_artifact, or list_operations, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.