Retrieve all function runs triggered by a specific event ID to inspect production execution history and debug Inngest workflows.
List all function runs that were triggered by a specific event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventId | Yes | The event ID (ULID) |
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 full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via "List" but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, empty-result behavior, or permission requirements for a read across an event's triggered runs.
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 clean sentence with the resource and scoping condition front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place return-shape information could live, and it does not describe what a run record contains or how results are bounded. For a read-list tool this leaves meaningful gaps.
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% and there is a single required parameter (eventId, documented as a ULID in the schema). The description only restates the notion of "a specific event" without adding format or lookup details, so the schema does the heavy lifting — a baseline 3.
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?
The description states a specific verb ("List") and a clearly scoped resource ("function runs triggered by a specific event"), so an agent can tell it apart from get_run (single run) and get_event (the event itself). It is clear, though it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_run, get_event, or list_events, nor any stated prerequisites. The only implied context is that the caller must already hold an eventId, which is not said outright.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.