List Discovery run history (discovery_status) — state, duration, and progress per scan, newest first
List Discovery run history (discovery_status) — state, duration, and progress per scan, newest first
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 25) | |
| query | No | Additional encoded query | |
| state | No | Filter by run state (e.g. "Active", "Complete", "Cancelled") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only and idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, and each row includes state, duration, and progress.
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 compact sentence with no wasted words. The tool's resource and ordering are front-loaded, and the listed fields follow immediately.
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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return shape. It does not state pagination behavior or the default limit, but those are documented in the schema.
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%, so the input schema already documents limit, query, and state. The description does not add syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it lists Discovery run history. It also names the concrete fields returned (state, duration, progress) and the ordering, which clearly distinguishes it from get_discovery_run and the other discovery-related list tools.
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 description implies that this tool is for viewing run history, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of get_discovery_run, list_discovery_logs, or list_job_run_history. The usage context is clear enough, but alternatives are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.