MCP GitHub CrunchTools

Get Workflow Run Tool

get_workflow_run_tool

Read-only

Retrieve a specific GitHub Actions workflow run and its jobs by repository and run ID to inspect status and job details without fetching logs.

Instructions

Get one GitHub Actions workflow run and its jobs (no logs).

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_workflow_run_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	No	Repository owner (defaults to GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG if unset)
`run_id`	Yes	Workflow run ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.2Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / run_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
Addedv1.2.0Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The '(no logs)' note adds genuinely useful scope context—telling the agent logs are excluded and must come from a logs-specific tool—but nothing else about auth, pagination, or result shape is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the most useful qualifier ('no logs') lands immediately after the core action.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values (including jobs) need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The definition is essentially complete, with only minor room for explicit sibling routing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so repo, owner, and run_id are all documented in the schema, including the owner default. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the 3 baseline correct.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (a GitHub Actions workflow run and its jobs), and scope ('one'), which implicitly contrasts with list_workflow_runs_tool. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of the top band.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'one' suggests fetching a known run_id versus listing, and '(no logs)' hints that log retrieval belongs to a different tool. No explicit when/when-not or named alternative is given, so routing is left to inference.

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