USERDATA

finish_run

Ends a research run as ok or failed and preserves its report. Use it to close a session with a recorded outcome and stored findings.

Instructions

Ends a run as "ok" or "failed" and keeps its report.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>",
      "run_status": "<run_status>",
      "report": "<report>"
    },
    "name": "finish_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`report`	Yes
`run_id`	Yes
`run_status`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the schema — that run_status is limited to "ok" or "failed" and the report is retained — but it says nothing about permissions, idempotency, behavior on an already-finished run, or whether the report is overwritten.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the outcome front-loaded and no filler. The embedded quoted values make it slightly choppy but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a three-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema coverage the description is too thin. The most important undisclosed behavior — what happens when run_status is neither value or the run is already terminal — is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% with three required parameters, and the description constrains only run_status ("ok" or "failed"), which is valuable given the schema declares a bare string with no enum. run_id and report get no semantics at all — no format for the id, no hint whether report is free-form, structured, or length-limited.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ("Ends") plus resource ("a run") plus the two terminal states, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It reads as the natural counterpart to the sibling start_run, though the distinguishing relationship is left implicit rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no precondition that a run must have been started with start_run, and no guidance on whether calling it twice is safe. The pairing with start_run is only inferable from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.