Skip to main content
Glama

List runs

list_runs
Read-only

Lists an account's recent model runs newest first, including ID, time, kind, model, status, and verdict. Use the limit option to control how many results return; runs remain available for 14 days.

Instructions

The account's recent runs, newest first: id, when, kind, model, status and verdict. Runs are kept 14 days.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many runs, newest first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: results are ordered newest first, the response shape is enumerated (which matters because there is no output schema), and runs are only retained 14 days, bounding what can be retrieved. Pagination behavior is not mentioned, though the single limit parameter suggests there is none.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the resource, ordering, and returned fields are front-loaded and the retention caveat follows in one clause.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and one fully documented parameter, the definition covers scope, ordering, return fields, and a retention constraint. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the 14-day window also limits what limit can practically return.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the limit parameter is documented in the schema as 'How many runs, newest first.' The description reinforces the newest-first ordering but does not add the default (20) or maximum (100) context, so it stays at the baseline.

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 names a specific resource (the account's runs) and enumerates the fields returned (id, when, kind, model, status, verdict), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like run_status or wait_for_run, which keeps it 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'recent runs, newest first' with a 14-day retention window tells the agent this is a browsing/enumeration tool, not a single-run lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as run_status or get_report, and no stated exclusions.

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