hex-mcp-server

hex-get-project-runs

List all API-triggered runs for a project to audit execution status. Filter results by status or trigger type.

Instructions

List all API-triggered runs for a project. Filter by status or trigger type.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "hex-get-project-runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`projectId`	Yes
`statusFilter`	No
`runTriggerFilter`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it does not disclose pagination behavior despite limit/offset, ordering, result caps, or permission requirements. Only the read-only nature of 'List' is implied.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the verb and scope come first. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It should explain pagination, default trigger scope, and return shape to be sufficient.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% with 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only mentions status and trigger-type filtering (covering statusFilter and runTriggerFilter) and leaves limit, offset, and the exact projectId semantics undocumented.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It names a clear verb (List) and resource (runs) scoped to a project, which distinguishes it from run-lifecycle siblings like hex-get-run-status and hex-cancel-run. However, 'all API-triggered runs' conflicts with the runTriggerFilter enum that also accepts SCHEDULED, APP_REFRESH, and ALL, so the stated scope is ambiguous or misleading.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus hex-get-run-status or hex-list-threads, and no prerequisites (auth, project access) are stated. The only hint is the filter mention, which is implicit rather than an explicit selection rule.

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

Deploy Server