Skip to main content
Glama
Yan-Vi
by Yan-Vi

live_list_runs

List current and recent test runs from the connected side panel, showing status and step counts for monitoring and review.

Instructions

Lists runs on the connected side panel: current (still running, one per tab) and history (finished/cancelled this session, most recent first, capped at 30). Each entry is a summary (id, name, flowId, tabId, status, step counts) -- use live_get_run for one run's full per-step detail. Safe to poll repeatedly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoPath to the project root (same folder the side panel connects to). Defaults to the EASYSPEC_PROJECT environment variable if omitted.
sessionNoWhich connected side panel to target, by its connection id (see live_status) -- only needed when more than one side panel is connected to the same project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.4

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the tool is safe to poll, mentions the 30-run cap, and clarifies the scope to the current session. It does not mention any side effects, but for a read-only listing tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, information-dense, and free of redundancy. It packs purpose, scope, output summary, and behavioral guidance into three sentences without wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the two categories (current/history), the ordering and cap, and the summary fields per entry. It also points to live_get_run for full detail, making the tool's place in the workflow clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema descriptions for both parameters (project and session) are clear and cover 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter guidance, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states that it lists runs from the connected side panel, distinguishes between current and history, and summarizes the entry fields. It references live_get_run for full detail, providing differentiation from that sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast with other list-run tools like live_list_scenario_runs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly advises that the tool is safe to poll repeatedly, which is a direct usage guideline. Recommends live_get_run when full per-step detail is needed, giving an alternative path. It does not specify when to prefer this over other run-listing tools, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.