Retrieve recent run history for a job to inspect outcomes, statuses, and failures. Filter by status and paginate results for troubleshooting and auditing.
List recent executions (run history) for a job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| jobId | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, what 'recent' means (window size, default limit), pagination behavior, or what fields are returned per execution.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and no filler. Efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing-parameter gaps noted elsewhere.
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?
A 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema leaves the description responsible for behavior and parameter meaning, and it covers essentially none of it beyond the required job scope.
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% across 4 parameters, and the description only implies jobId scoping. The status filter (7 enum values), page, and limit — all the parameters an agent would actually need to reason about — go unmentioned.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('executions / run history') with the scoping qualifier 'for a job'. No sibling tool covers execution history, so it's distinguishable, though it never says so explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus anything else, and no mention of replay_execution which is the natural follow-up sibling. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'run history'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.