Retrieve a specific action run by ID to inspect execution details, status, and results for troubleshooting or auditing.
Fetch an action run by its ID Retrieves an action run entity with a specific ID GET /abx/api/resources/action-runs/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the action run (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: no word on behavior for an unknown/expired ID, whether run logs or output are included, or whether deleted runs are visible.
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 lines that repeat the same fact three times: fetch, retrieve, and the GET path. Front-loaded and short, but genuinely redundant rather than dense.
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 with full annotation coverage, the basics are there. Without an output schema, though, the description should at least hint at what an action run entity contains, since that determines whether the agent calls this or a projections/logs sibling.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as the path ID, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by its ID' and adds no format hints (UUID vs. opaque string) beyond that baseline.
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: fetch/retrieve an action run entity by ID, plus the underlying endpoint. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as abx_get_action_runs_by_action_id (list runs for an action) or abx_get_all_action_run_projections, so an agent must infer which retrieval variant it needs.
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 the sibling list/query tools for action runs, nor any prerequisite (e.g. needing a run ID obtained from abx_get_action_runs_by_action_id). The only implied usage is 'you have an ID'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.