Skip to main content
Glama
JeanFrancoisGagne

crapkit

by JeanFrancoisGagne
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Scored run history

list_runs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all stored runs oldest first to show which commit other crapkit tools answer from, get trend totals, and view one function's history.

Instructions

Lists every run in the store, oldest first by id. Use it to see which commit the other tools answer from, get_trend for totals and get_function_history for one function. Marking the baseline run costs one git ancestry check per trusted run's commit, newest first, down to it: one when it is the newest, on any branch, none with no trusted run. repo may be any directory under the checkout, and a relative path resolves from the server's start directory. With no crapkit.toml above it, or no snapshot store yet, it answers isError true with the command to run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNopath to the scored repo's root (default: the repo the server was started in); a leading ~ is the home directory

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runsNoevery run in the store, oldest first
schemaNopayload schema version, 1
truncatedNopresent only when the whole answer was longer than one tool result the server sends (7,500 characters): each list, string or object field it cut, at any depth, keeps its start, and full is the CLI command that prints the whole answer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.8.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / repo / description
      Previous value: -"path to the scored repo's root (default: the repo the server was started in)"New value: +"path to the scored repo's root (default: the repo the server was started in); a leading ~ is the home directory"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / truncated
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "present only when the whole answer was longer than one tool result the server sends (7,500 characters): each list, string or object field it cut, at any depth, keeps its start, and full is the CLI command that prints the whole answer",
+  "properties": {
+    "fields": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "properties": {
+          "kept": {
+            "description": "how many the answer keeps",
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "of": {
+            "description": "how many the whole answer has",
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "description": "each cut field, named by its keys joined with dots (gate.breaches) -> kept and of: elements for a list, entries for an object, characters for a string",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "full": {
+      "description": "the crapkit command that prints the whole answer, spelled for the server's shell",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations: discloses the git ancestry-check cost of marking a baseline, the error behavior (isError true with the command to run) when no config or store exists, and repo path resolution rules. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage routing and behavioral caveats. The ancestry-cost clause is dense and hard to parse, but every sentence carries information rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description nonetheless covers path semantics and the failure mode, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating repo may be any directory under the checkout and that a relative path resolves from the server's start directory, clarifying resolution behavior the schema does not cover.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists every run in the store') plus ordering ('oldest first by id'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_trend for totals and get_function_history for single-function history, so an agent can separate it without opening the schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear primary use case ('see which commit the other tools answer from') and explicitly names the sibling tools that serve related needs. It does not state exclusions or when not to call it, but the routing context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools