RCF MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compute.list_runs

compute_list_runs

Read-only

Lists recent compute runs from the local database, with optional state filtering so you can review job history and track execution status.

Instructions

List recent runs from the local database, optionally filtered by state.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "compute_list_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`state`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's added value is limited to noting the data comes from the local database rather than a remote service. It does not disclose ordering (newest first?), the default page size of 20, or whether 'recent' implies a retention window, all of which matter for interpreting results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though the same word count could have carried the missing limit guidance instead.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema and two parameters, this is close to adequate, but the undocumented 'limit' parameter and unspecified ordering/state semantics leave real gaps an agent would hit on first call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only clarifies that 'state' is an optional filter; the 'limit' parameter (default 20) goes completely unmentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List recent runs') plus a source ('local database'), which distinguishes it from run-inspection siblings like compute_get_run and compute_submit_run. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the agent needs a single run rather than a list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Optionally filtered by state' implies the one filtering scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus compute_get_run / compute_wait_run / compute_list_projects, and no statement of whether state values must be exact match or which values exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.