get_runFetch a reconciled run snapshot for a given run ID and check if the host must wait again before concluding, based on running or unknown status.
Preferred tool to reconcile and return one run snapshot; replaces the deprecated status_run alias. If status is running or unknown, hostPollContract.hostMustCallWaitRunAgain is true and the host must not conclude.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond those. It does so well by disclosing the polling contract: a non-terminal status forces hostMustCallWaitRunAgain=true and forbids conclusion. It also notes the deprecation of status_run, which helps an agent understand expected behavior.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and preference, and the second delivers the critical behavioral contract. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential safety and polling behavior. It lacks an explicit return-value description and does not explain runId, but the 'run snapshot' phrase plus the schema's strongly typed runId keep the definition mostly complete.
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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the runId parameter or how it is used. It never mentions runId, format expectations, or how the run snapshot is selected. The schema itself is self-descriptive with a UUID pattern, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'reconcile and return one run snapshot' and notes it replaces the deprecated status_run alias. It identifies a specific resource (a Harness run) and a read operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_run_summary or open_run.
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?
It frames get_run as the 'Preferred tool' for this task and calls out the deprecated status_run alternative. It also gives a concrete post-call condition: if status is running or unknown, the host must not conclude and must call wait_run again. It lacks explicit exclusions for other sibling tools, but the context is fairly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.