runs_summaryRetrieve all-time run counts by status to snapshot an account's run queue, then use the status totals to decide which individual runs to query.
list runs (summary)
All-time run counts by status — a snapshot of the account's run queue. For the runs themselves use GET /runs?status=....
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond that: the counts are all-time (no date filtering) and they are an account-wide snapshot, which sets expectations about freshness and scope. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g., per-status buckets) or any refresh/rate 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?
Two short sentences plus a title line; the substance (all-time counts, use the other endpoint for records) is front-loaded with no filler. The embedded markdown REST link is slightly off-register for an MCP tool description and adds a small amount of noise an agent cannot act on.
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?
For a zero-parameter, non-destructive aggregate with no output schema, the description covers what it does, its scope (all-time, account-wide), and where to go instead for detail. What it returns is implied ('counts by status') rather than spelled out, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to fill it.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. The description reinforces this by making clear the result is unfiltered and all-time, so an agent will not go hunting for a date or status argument.
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 resource and aggregation: 'All-time run counts by status — a snapshot of the account's run queue.' That clearly distinguishes an aggregate summary from the individual-run tools. It loses a point because the first line just restates the title, and the contrast is drawn against a REST endpoint ('GET /runs') rather than the sibling tool `list_runs`, which is what an agent actually has to choose between.
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?
It gives an explicit alternative: 'For the runs themselves use ... ?status=...', which tells the agent to go elsewhere for per-run records. There are no exclusion conditions stated beyond that (no mention of time windows, account scoping caveats, or when the summary is stale), and the alternative is named as an HTTP path instead of the MCP sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.