Fetch complete details for a single simulation run by ID, including manifest, metrics, report, stdout log tail, and output files.
One run in full: manifest (command, params, timings, versions, file hashes), metrics, report, the last lines of its stdout.log (the world's own output and errors) and the files in its folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the payload shape, notably that stdout.log is only the last lines, which sets expectations about truncation. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, error behavior for unknown run_ids, and whether the read has side effects.
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?
A single dense sentence with no filler; the payload enumeration is front-loaded and every clause conveys content. The parenthetical aside ('the world's own output and errors') is slightly editorial but still informative.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does so reasonably well. Gaps remain around how to source the run_id and what happens on failure, and with no annotations there is no safety profile to fall back on.
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 the single run_id parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never states the run_id format, where to obtain a valid value, or whether it is an ID versus a name/path.
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 the resource (one run, keyed by run_id) and enumerates its contents in detail, which lets an agent distinguish it from list_runs and compare_runs. The verb is implicit in the tool name rather than stated, but the payload enumeration is specific enough to convey purpose.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that run_id comes from list_runs), and no mention of when to prefer compare_runs or get_experiment instead. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.