Retrieve recent worker run records from the global operational ledger, with optional project path filtering and limit for focused review.
List recent Antigravity worker runs from the global operational ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional exact project path filter. | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description agrees with. The description adds minor context (global ledger, recent) but does not disclose details like default ordering, pagination, or whether results are scoped to the current user. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single sentence with zero wasted words. The key action and scope are front-loaded, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is a simple list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essence but omits details like result format, ordering, or any default filtering. For a read-only list tool, this is minimally sufficient, but it could be more complete.
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 description coverage is 50% (cwd is described, limit is not). The description provides no additional parameter meaning, leaving the limit parameter's semantics undocumented. The self-explanatory name 'limit' helps, but with only 50% coverage, the description should compensate, and 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?
States a specific verb 'List', a clear resource 'recent Antigravity worker runs', and a source 'global operational ledger'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_models, list_teams, and list_artifacts, and from run-specific tools like get_run or cancel_run.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer list_runs over get_run, get_media_run, or other list tools, nor does it exclude any scenarios. An agent must infer 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.