Retrieve detailed evaluation run information by ID, including status, aggregate counts, timestamps, and scorer specifications. Get the data needed to analyze and debug evaluation results.
Get an eval run by ID (status, aggregate counts, timestamps, scorer specs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Eval run ID, e.g. "erun_abc123". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=trueable true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the returned data categories, but does not mention behavior like error cases, response shape beyond the field names, or any limits. The added value is real but modest.
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?
One short sentence with the core action front-loaded and a parenthetical summarizing the return contents. There is no fluff or repetition; every part contributes useful information.
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 single-parameter read-only getter, the description covers the key facts: what it returns and the input. There is no output schema, so listing the return contents is necessary and done. It could have added marginal details like pagination or error behavior, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficient.
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 100% and the single id parameter is already clearly documented with an example. The tool description does not add any additional meaning for the parameter beyond restating that it identifies the eval run. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('eval run') and names the key data fields returned (status, aggregate counts, timestamps, scorer specs). It clearly identifies the tool's function, but does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling getters like invariance_run_get or invariance_eval_run_results.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as invariance_run_get, invariance_run_inspect, or invariance_eval_run_results. The context signals show a dense cluster of run-related tools, so the description leaves the agent without any routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.