Lists recent audio story runs from the configured runs directory so you can review prior jobs; use the optional limit to control how many results are returned.
Liệt kê các run gần nhất dưới thư mục gốc ($AUDIO_STORY_RUNS_DIR, mặc định ./audio-story-runs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose a genuine behavioral detail the schema cannot — the storage location and its $AUDIO_STORY_RUNS_DIR override with default ./audio-story-runs. It says nothing about ordering (newest first?), whether the scan is recursive, or behavior when the directory is missing, which matters for a filesystem-backed tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb+resource lead and the scoping detail trails it. Nothing is wasted, though nothing is added beyond that single clause either.
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?
Complexity is low, there are no required parameters, and an output schema exists so return shape needn't be described. The remaining gaps — limit semantics, ordering, and empty/missing-directory behavior — leave an agent with an incomplete picture of how to call it correctly.
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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all, so its meaning (count of runs? default 20 but max?) is undocumented everywhere. The description also doesn't clarify that it limits the 'most recent' set.
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 ('Liệt kê') and resource ('các run'), plus the scope (root directory), so an agent can tell it lists runs rather than reporting on one. It never names the closest sibling run_status, however, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. An agent must infer from 'most recent runs' that this is the discovery/listing entry point before drilling into run_status, rather than being told so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.