List standardized model benchmark runs with query filter and result limit for inspecting or comparing benchmark entities.
List run standardized model benchmarks entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| query | No | Filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention permissions, return format, side effects, or limitations. The behavior beyond the verb is entirely unspecified.
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 sentence, but it is poorly constructed and ambiguous ('List run standardized model benchmarks entities'). It is not front-loaded with key information and fails to convey a clear purpose efficiently.
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 tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it relates to sibling tools, or any constraints like pagination or ordering. The existence of sibling tools increases the need for differentiation, which is missing.
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 input schema fully describes both parameters with clear descriptions ('Max results' and 'Filter'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a verb ('List') and a resource ('standardized model benchmarks entities'), but the phrasing 'List run' is awkward and ambiguous. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like aibench_status or aibench_inspect, which likely also deal with benchmarks.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the siblings aibench_status, aibench_inspect, or aibench_compare. The description does not mention any alternative tools or conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.