get_run_summaryRetrieve metadata-only journal summaries of prior workflow runs by run_id to audit progress and outcomes without exposing prompts or responses.
Fetch the local journal summary of a previous run. Metadata only: prompts and responses are never stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | run_id from a previous run_workflow result |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope ('local journal') and a privacy guarantee ('prompts and responses are never stored'), which tells the agent this is a safe read that cannot leak conversation content. It says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid run_id, whether results are paginated or truncated, or what the summary contains.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the single most decision-relevant constraint (metadata only). Nothing is wasted or redundant.
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?
The single parameter is well documented and the privacy constraint is covered, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent still cannot know what fields the summary returns (status? timing? counts?) — a meaningful gap for a tool whose whole value is its returned metadata.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains run_id as coming from a previous run_workflow result; the description's 'previous run' framing is consistent but adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting, with a slight bump for the framing that reinforces the linkage to the sibling tool.
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: 'Fetch the local journal summary of a previous run.' An agent can tell that this reads recorded metadata about a past run rather than listing workflows (list_workflows) or starting one (run_workflow). Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, so not a 5.
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 by 'previous run' — i.e., call it after run_workflow with a run_id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisite (must have a prior run_id), and no guidance on what to do if the run is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.