get_study_runGet the current status of a study run and its linked model by providing the run ID. Returns durable status information and associated model details for marketing mix analysis.
Read durable run status and the linked model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns durable status and the linked model, which is useful context, but it does not clarify what 'durable' means or describe other behavioral constraints.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The core action and key output are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete. The only slight gap is the ambiguity of 'durable' and the lack of any link to the broader study context, but the agent has enough 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 schema has one parameter, run_id, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning, format, or source. The property name is self-evident, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb ('Read') with a clear object ('durable run status') and a distinct output ('the linked model'). This differentiates it from sibling getters like get_model_status or list_study_runs.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several related read tools, but the description does not name them or state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.