Retrieve the persisted status and counts of a research run by providing its run ID.
Read the persisted status and counts for one existing research run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| stop_reason | Yes | ||
| adapter_mode | Yes | ||
| distinct_candidates | Yes | ||
| simulation_attempts | Yes | ||
| automatic_submission_available | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. It adds context that the tool reads persisted data (status and counts) and requires an existing run, but does not disclose error behavior for missing runs or permission requirements. The description does not contradict annotations.
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 description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the key information about reading status and counts for a specific run.
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?
Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is fairly complete for a read-only tool with one parameter. It does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if run_id does not exist) or whether the run must be in a specific state, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the operation.
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 parameter (run_id) with zero description coverage. The description implies run_id identifies the specific run, but provides no format, constraints, or additional semantics. While the purpose is inferable, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the action (read) and the resource (persisted status and counts for one existing research run). It distinguishes itself as a targeted read for a specific run, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like alpha_run_report or alpha_run_stop. The verb and scope are specific enough for an agent to infer the tool's role.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking status, but does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection. An agent would need to infer from context which sibling to call. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.