Fetch details for a specific job run in a watsonx project using project, job, and run IDs to inspect its execution record.
EXPERIMENTAL — from an unverified example request. Wraps GET /v2/jobs/{id}/runs/{run_id}?project_id=.... A related GET .../runs/{run_id}/logs endpoint was also seen but is not called here — not one of the 13 capabilities as a separate tool in v1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read. It adds real context by disclosing the wrapped endpoint and warning that the definition came from an unverified example request, which matters for trust in results. It still says nothing about what a run object contains, whether logs are included, or failure behavior.
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?
Short and front-loaded with the experimental caveat, but one of its three sentences is devoted to an endpoint not being called, which does not help the agent invoke this tool. The endpoint URL is the most useful fragment and is buried mid-sentence.
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?
All three parameters are undocumented and there is no output schema, so the description ideally would explain identifier formats and what a run result looks like. It partially compensates by exposing the REST route and flagging that the spec is unverified, but leaves meaningful gaps for a lookup tool.
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 0% for three required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only weakly maps them to the endpoint — project_id as a query string, and an ambiguous '{id}' that presumably corresponds to job_id — leaving run_id and all ID formats undocumented.
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 identifies the operation via its underlying endpoint, GET /v2/jobs/{id}/runs/{run_id}, which implies retrieving a single job run. However, it never states plainly 'retrieves one job run' and offers no differentiation from siblings like list_job_runs or get_job. The heavy 'EXPERIMENTAL / unverified' hedging further reduces confidence in what the tool actually does.
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 call this versus list_job_runs or get_job, and no stated preconditions. The only routing remark concerns a logs endpoint that is explicitly not called, which is tangential rather than actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.