list_runsList topology optimization run folders in the work folder, newest first, showing each run’s state and iteration.
List the run folders in the work folder (newest first), with state and iteration.
A run folder is any folder in the work folder, or in its runs/ folder, that holds status.json or run.json. Paths are relative to the work folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add operational detail — and it does: result ordering (newest first), the fields surfaced (state and iteration), and the exact criterion that makes a folder a run. It stops short of describing the full return shape or what happens with an empty/nonexistent work folder.
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 and ordering, followed by the one definition an agent actually needs. No filler or restatement of the name.
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 must convey the return content, and it names the salient fields (state, iteration) and ordering. A little more on the record shape (e.g. whether the folder name/path is included) would make it fully self-sufficient for a zero-param listing tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds useful framing by clarifying that any paths in the results are relative to the work folder, which preempts a likely agent misreading.
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 the run folders in the work folder') and then defines the ambiguous term 'run folder' by its detection criterion (status.json or run.json). An agent can tell this apart from run_status, run_result, or run_history without opening any schema, since this is the enumeration 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 ordering note ('newest first') and the folder-detection rule imply the discovery use case, but the description never says when to choose this over siblings like run_history, run_status, or compare_runs. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.