View metadata for the five most recent evaluation runs, newest first, to track recent model comparisons and scores.
List metadata for the 5 most recent runs, newest first.
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: a hard cap of 5 results and newest-first ordering, which tells the agent this is not a paginated full listing. It does not confirm the read-only nature or say what happens on a fresh workspace with no runs.
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?
One sentence, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (the 5-result cap) is front-loaded right after the verb.
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 no-argument, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back, how many, and in what order. Minor gaps remain around read-only confirmation and the empty-state behavior.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds the ordering and count semantics, which is all that could be said here.
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 ('List') and resource ('runs') plus the scope: the 5 most recent, newest first. That is clear and actionable. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings, though none of the listed siblings is another run-listing tool.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the recency scope, but the description never says when to reach for this versus other tools, nor whether it is meant for quick inspection rather than full enumeration. No alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.