Retrieve locally saved ontology runs in reverse chronological order, using the limit parameter to control how many results are returned.
本机保存过的运行，新的在前。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_runs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 最多给几次，默认 20 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full load, and it adds some behavior: results are scoped to runs saved on this machine and are returned newest-first. It does not say whether the operation is read-only in practice, how much each entry contains, or what happens when 'limit' is omitted beyond the schema's default.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with scope and ordering and no filler. The brevity is appropriate for a simple list tool, though it borders on under-specification.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the definition covers scope and ordering adequately. It still leaves open what a 'run' record contains and what the response looks like, which the absence of an output schema makes somewhat relevant.
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 fully documents the single 'limit' parameter (coverage 100%), which sets the baseline at 3. The ordering note 'newest first' implies that 'limit' returns the most recent N, which adds modest value, but the description never mentions 'limit' explicitly.
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 states the resource (运行/runs), narrows the scope to those saved locally (本机保存过的), and gives the ordering (新的在前). That is more than the bare name, though it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as run_overview.
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?
It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over run_overview or other listing tools, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the intended usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.