Retrieve recent runs for a Mode Analytics report, with an optional limit, to track execution history and statuses.
List recent runs for a report.
Args: report_token: The report token. limit: Max number of runs to return (default 10).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| report_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether this is read-only, whether it requires authentication, pagination behavior, or how 'recent' is defined. For a list operation with no safety hints, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
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?
The prose line is concise, but then it includes an 'Args' section that restates the schema parameters without adding value. This padding reduces efficiency; a well-structured description would front-load purpose and only mention parameters if adding meaning.
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?
Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the description still omits critical context: what 'recent' means, whether results are paginated, required permissions, and how this differs from sibling tools. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke confidently.
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%, so the schema provides only types and defaults. The description lists the two parameters with brief notes ('report token', 'Max number ... default 10'), but adds no format, constraints, or meaning beyond the parameter names. This does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb+resource: 'List recent runs for a report.' This is clear enough, but it does not differentiate from siblings like get_report or list_reports, and provides no scope details beyond 'recent'. It is adequate but vague.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The sibling get_run_results exists and likely retrieves details of a specific run, but the description does not explain when to use this list tool versus that one. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.