Create, read, or close RunningHub work items to track requests without creating jobs or submitting paid tasks.
Create/read/close a requested work item; creation does not create a job or submit a paid task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| chain_id | No | ||
| scene_id | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| request_kind | No | ||
| user_request | No | ||
| work_item_id | No | ||
| allowed_outputs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: creating a work item has no job/paid-task side effect. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether 'close' is destructive/irreversible, or any side effects of read/close, leaving significant gaps.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally good, but it is disproportionately terse for a multi-action tool with 8 parameters. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy.
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 three-mode (create/read/close) tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to know which parameters each action requires or what close does to an item.
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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only names the three 'action' enum values implicitly; chain_id, scene_id, project_id, request_kind, user_request, work_item_id, and allowed_outputs are undocumented in both schema and description.
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 set (create/read/close) and a clear resource (requested work item), and adds a scoping note that separates it from job/task-execution siblings like rh_job and rh_run_workflow. It is not a tautology.
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?
The clause 'creation does not create a job or submit a paid task' implies this is the lightweight bookkeeping tool rather than the execution path, which partially routes the agent. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over rh_job/rh_prepare_generation, and no conditions or exclusions for read vs close.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.