Retrieve a run's status, metadata, aggregate counts, and timestamps from the Invariance observability platform to investigate agent behavior and debug issues.
Get details of an Invariance run (status, metadata, aggregate counts, timestamps).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Run ID, e.g. "run_abc123". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating the operation is read-only and may have unknown side effects. The description adds value by outlining the specific information returned (status, metadata, aggregate counts, timestamps), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential pagination or error behavior, but with the annotations covering safety, this is acceptable for a simple getter.
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?
The description is extremely concise, one sentence, and front-loads the purpose. It lists the key details returned without extraneous words. There is no fluff, making it efficient for an agent to read.
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 getter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies what information is returned and the read-only nature is implied by annotations. The only minor gap is lack of explicit comparison with sibling run tools, but that doesn't prevent correct invocation.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter 'id', which is well-documented. The description does not add further parameter detail, but since the schema is complete, a baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details of an Invariance run and lists the specific details included: status, metadata, aggregate counts, timestamps. It is distinct from sibling tools like invariance_run_list (which lists runs) and invariance_run_metrics (which specifically gets metrics), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from these 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 description implies usage by stating what it retrieves, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives such as invariance_run_metrics or invariance_run_llm_calls. With many sibling run-related tools, more explicit guidance would help an agent select the right one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.