Lists recent GitHub Actions workflow runs in the active repository, optionally filtered by status, so you can inspect CI results and identify failed or completed jobs.
List recent GitHub Actions workflow runs in the active repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it lists recent runs in the active repository, but it does not explain permissions needed, pagination behavior, default ordering, how many runs are returned by default, or what the response looks like. The behavioral context is therefore minimal.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, recency scope, and repository scope without filler. Every phrase contributes useful selection information, and there is no redundant text.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more behavioral and parameter context. It does not explain the two filters, pagination or limits, or the shape of returned runs, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking the tool. The sentence is accurate but insufficiently complete for the structured metadata available.
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 two parameters, limit and status, with 0% description coverage and no enums. The description does not mention either parameter, so it adds no meaning about what limit controls or which status values are accepted. An agent must infer parameter behavior entirely from bare schema types.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List recent GitHub Actions workflow runs in the active repository." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_workflows (workflows, not runs) and rerun_workflow (mutation, not listing). It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool.
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 indicates that the tool lists recent runs in the active repository, which provides implied usage context. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of list_workflows or rerun_workflow, nor does it mention exclusions such as filtering by workflow ID, branch, or actor. The guidance is adequate but leaves alternatives and boundaries implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.