openactors

Run an Actor task

run-actor-task

Run a saved task and override any input fields for this run only, so one task adapts to similar search variations without duplication.

Instructions

Run a saved task. Any fields given in input override the saved ones for this run only, so one task covers a family of similar searches.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "run-actor-task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`input`	No	Fields to override for this run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that input overrides saved fields only for this run and is non-persistent, but it does not mention whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, what the return value is, or that running a task consumes resources. These are important behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the override behavior is stated in a compact, useful way.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover more ground. It explains the core run semantics but omits the return format, asynchronous behavior, and what exactly the id identifies. For a side-effecting run tool, these omissions leave the agent with material uncertainty.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes the input parameter but not the id parameter. The description clarifies the override semantics for input, adding meaning beyond the schema, but leaves the id parameter implicit. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully close the gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Run a saved task') and the resource (an Actor task), and adds meaningful detail about input override behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like call-actor or create-actor-task, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied: run a task that was previously saved. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as call-actor or create-actor-task, nor any when-not-to-use conditions, so the agent has to infer the boundary from sibling names.

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