List visible runs in reverse-chronological order with pagination to review agent activity and investigate issues.
List runs visible to the calling agent in reverse-chronological order (paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | opaque pagination token from previous response next_cursor; pass through unchanged |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and operates in an open world, so the description's main added value is the 'visible to the calling agent' and 'reverse-chronological order' details. It does not disclose response shape or the presence of repeated pagination behavior beyond what the schema and 'paginated' imply.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every piece of information — resource, scope, ordering, pagination — is packed into one short statement, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 basic read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough about scope and pagination to be useful. It could be more complete by hinting at the response structure or the need to recurse with 'cursor', but this is a minor standard for such a simple operation.
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 description adds only the vague word 'paginated'; it does not explain how 'limit' controls page size or how 'cursor' is used beyond the schema's own description of the cursor. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter, but it does not.
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 verb ('List'), the resource ('runs'), a scoping qualifier ('visible to the calling agent'), and an ordering/pagination detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the very similar sibling 'invariance_list_runs', so it stays just short of a 5.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many run-related siblings or when not to use it. The qualifier 'visible to the calling agent' provides context, but no exclusion or alternative is mentioned, so the agent is left to infer usage independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.