Verify a run's status and correctness by providing its ID, enabling quick debugging and validation of agent behavior on the Invariance platform.
Alias of invariance_run_verify
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes no mention of side effects, required permissions, return characteristics, or operational behavior. An agent cannot infer what effects invoking this tool will have.
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 single sentence is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides zero informative content, and no structure or front-loading of actionable details.
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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to convey the tool's purpose, expected input semantics, or any operational constraints, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.
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 schema has one required parameter 'id' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no semantic context for the parameter, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 only states 'Alias of invariance_run_verify' without explaining what the tool actually does. It does not name the resource or action being performed. This is a tautological pointer that requires the agent to look up invariance_run_verify, offering no independent purpose clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The alias reference does not include any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.