USERDATA

start_run

Starts a skill run with its current version and supplied inputs, optionally linking execution to a session ID for context.

Instructions

Starts a run of the latest version of a skill.

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": {
      "skill_name": "<skill_name>",
      "run_inputs": "<run_inputs>"
    },
    "name": "start_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_inputs`	Yes
`session_id`	No
`skill_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not say whether the run executes synchronously or asynchronously, what happens to prior runs, or whether the call has side effects beyond creating state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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, which offsets some of the gap. Still, for a state-creating tool with a free-form nested input object, the definition leaves too much unresolved about inputs and runtime behavior.

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%, yet the description explains no parameters. Most damaging is run_inputs, a free-form nested object with additionalProperties whose expected contents are completely undocumented, and session_id's purpose is never mentioned.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Starts a run") and adds the useful qualifier that it targets "the latest version of a skill." It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like start_project or start_session, which also begin work items, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this rather than start_project or start_session, no stated prerequisites, and no note on how it relates to finish_run. The agent is left to infer the full usage context.

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