List all recent agent runs with their status and exit codes.
List all recent agent runs with their status and exit codes.
{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": {"runs": [{"job_id": str, "status": str, "exit_code": int}]}}
opencode_list_runs(limit=20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max jobs to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.11Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the return shape (job_id, status, exit_code), but leaves ambiguous what 'recent' means, how runs are ordered, or whether results are paginated beyond the limit cap.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact return-format block and one example line. Nothing is repetitive, though the example adds little given a single bounded integer parameter.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the exact return envelope, which is the main gap it needed to cover. It is slightly incomplete on ordering and the meaning of 'recent', but an agent can call it correctly from what is given.
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 100% and the limit parameter already documents its type, default of 20, and 1-100 bounds. The description only repeats the parameter in an example call, adding no semantics such as ordering or what happens when limit exceeds available runs.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'List all recent agent runs with their status and exit codes' tells the agent exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-siblings like opencode_get_run_status (single run) or opencode_runs, so differentiation is left implicit.
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 statement of when to use this versus opencode_get_run_status or opencode_runs, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is an example call with limit=20, which demonstrates syntax rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.