Lists background runs outside batch mode, showing run handle, tool, object, start time, and status so you can locate a run and read its output by handle.
[read-only] [runtime] Lists your background runs: run_handle, tool, object, when it started, and running or finished. A run's output is read by its run_handle. Runs outside batch mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v20.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it compensates partially by self-tagging "[read-only]" and "[runtime]" and by describing the handle-based retrieval model. It says nothing about whether finished runs persist, retention windows, result limits, or pagination behavior, which matters for a list tool with no output schema.
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?
Three short clauses with zero filler, front-loaded with the read-only/runtime tags and the verb-resource statement. Every sentence carries information the agent cannot get from structured fields.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what comes back, how to retrieve a run's output, and how batch runs differ. The only missing piece is enumeration behavior (result size, ordering, retention), a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 with nothing for the description to add. The schema is empty and the description correctly implies the call needs no input.
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 and resource ("Lists your background runs") and enumerates the returned fields (run_handle, tool, object, start time, status), so the agent knows exactly what surface this covers. It does not name the singular sibling GetBackgroundRun, but the phrase "A run's output is read by its run_handle" points at it indirectly.
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 clause "Runs outside batch mode" scopes usage and implicitly routes batch-mode work to BatchEnd/BatchAnswers, and "A run's output is read by its run_handle" tells the agent to follow up with GetBackgroundRun rather than expecting output here. There is no explicit "do not use for X" statement, but the boundary is clear enough to act on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.