Retrieve a stored local prompt-regression run to inspect checks, outputs, provenance, token usage, failures, and known limitations before a human release decision.
Read one local run, including checks, outputs, provenance, and known limitations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by enumerating what data the read returns (checks, outputs, provenance, known limitations), though it omits any auth, rate-limit, or format details.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The verb and object come first, and the included data categories follow 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?
For a simple get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the returned data categories and is supported by rich safety annotations. Its only gap is that it does not explain run_id despite 0% schema coverage, but overall it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining run_id. It only implies that run_id identifies 'one local run' and gives no format, source, or constraints, leaving the parameter substantially under-specified.
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 specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one local run'), and explicitly lists the returned contents (checks, outputs, provenance, known limitations). It clearly distinguishes from the singular/plural sibling list_runs by emphasizing 'one' 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?
The description implies usage (fetch a single run's details) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions. It is adequate for an agent that already knows it needs one run by id, but offers no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.