Retrieve and filter past GTM agent run history, newest first, showing status, judge score, retries, and cost, with company, job, or since-date filters.
Past agent runs, newest first: status, judge score, retries, force-approved, cost. Filters: company (domain), job (research, list_building, signals, copywriting), since (ISO date, e.g. 2026-10-01).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| company | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: result ordering (newest first) and the content of each record (status, judge score, retries, force-approved, cost). It omits truncation/pagination behavior tied to limit, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by filters. Every clause carries information; there is no boilerplate or repetition.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and all filtering axes, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing pieces are the limit/pagination behavior (default 50, potential truncation) and any tie-breaking to sibling cost or summary tools.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema declares no enums, so the description must carry the burden. It documents company (domain), job with its four concrete values (research, list_building, signals, copywriting), and since with an ISO date example — strong compensation. The limit parameter and its default of 50 are never mentioned.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Past agent runs') with ordering ('newest first') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling run_costs, which also surfaces run cost data, so it falls 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 filter list implies when the tool is useful (history of agent runs filtered by company/job/date), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as run_costs or get_list_summary. Usage must be inferred from the filter semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.