list_runsRetrieve available test runs oldest first with build, commit, date, and headline pass rate; optionally limit results to the most recent N runs for focused QA history review.
List available test runs (oldest first) with build, commit, date and headline pass rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| last_n | No | Only consider the most recent N runs (default: all runs) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee ('oldest first') and the returned field set, which is real value beyond annotations. However, it says nothing about volume — that the default returns every run, and that the schema caps last_n at 500 — which matters for an unbounded listing.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields and ordering as compact trailing qualifiers. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the single optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. What is missing is a note on result volume/pagination behavior given the 'all runs' default, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong when calling this at scale.
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 100% and the single optional parameter last_n is fully documented in the schema, including its 2–500 bounds and default of all runs. The description adds nothing about last_n, so baseline 3 applies. There is a minor friction: the tool is described as 'oldest first' while last_n is framed as 'most recent N', which the description does not reconcile.
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 and resource ('List available test runs') and adds scope detail by naming the fields returned (build, commit, date, headline pass rate) and the ordering ('oldest first'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the analytical siblings (get_run_summary, compare_runs, detect_regressions), which operate on runs rather than enumerate them, but never states that differentiation explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/entry-point tool that produces the run identifiers the other siblings consume. There is no explicit 'use this when...' clause, no mention of when to prefer it over get_run_summary, and no note about the cost of listing all runs before narrowing with last_n.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.