Retrieve recorded run data including level, status, measures, recording IDs, duration, and errors. Use it to review recent TwinCAT experiment or test execution history by name.
Run records: level, status, measures, recording ids, duration, error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| last_n | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no pagination behavior for last_n, no defaulting semantics, no scoping or ordering. It contributes essentially nothing beyond the annotations.
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?
Terse to the point of under-specification: a single sentence fragment with no verb. It is short but not because every element earned its place – it omits the core action while listing fields that the existing output schema already covers.
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 re-explained, yet the description spends its only line enumerating them. For a required-name query tool with weak usage and parameter coverage, the description is inadequate on the dimensions that matter.
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% and the description does not mention either parameter. The 'name' (required) identifier and 'last_n' (default 100) window are entirely unexplained in prose; the listed tokens are output fields, not parameters, so they provide no compensating meaning.
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 'Run records: level, status, measures, recording ids, duration, error' essentially restates the tool name and enumerates fields rather than stating what the tool does. There is no verb or action ('list', 'retrieve runs for an experiment'), and no differentiation from siblings like exp_list or exp_get. It reads as a tautological field list.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite many exp_* siblings (exp_list, exp_get, exp_run, exp_status). An agent must guess whether this lists, reads, or aggregates runs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.