get_workflow_run_toolGet one GitHub Actions workflow run and its jobs (no logs).
Get one GitHub Actions workflow run and its jobs (no logs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | No | Repository owner (defaults to GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG if unset) | |
| run_id | Yes | Workflow run ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares a safe read operation, and the description usefully adds that jobs are included but logs are not. It does not add anything on pagination, failure modes, or permissions, so with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single compact sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded. Every clause earns its place, with zero filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers scope and the no-logs boundary; only explicit routing guidance against sibling tools is absent.
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 description coverage is 100% across all 3 parameters, including the owner default fallback, so the schema already documents everything. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.
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?
Specific verb (Get) plus resource (one GitHub Actions workflow run and its jobs), with an explicit scope boundary in '(no logs)'. This differentiates it from list_workflow_runs_tool (singular 'one' vs. list) and get_failed_job_logs_tool (no logs), though it never names those siblings directly.
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 '(no logs)' hint and the singular 'one' imply the get-vs-list and no-logs use cases, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus list_workflow_runs_tool or get_failed_job_logs_tool. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.