list_runsLists runs recovered from durable relay state and reconciles their statuses, so you can verify which executions persisted across restarts.
Reconcile and list runs restored from durable relay state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serviceId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not restate that. It adds a data-source context ('restored from durable relay state') but does not clarify what 'reconcile' does or how it relates to the read-only guarantee.
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 one-sentence description is efficiently front-loaded and contains no filler. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity around 'reconcile'.
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?
With no output schema, the description should indicate what a caller receives (a list of runs) and whether serviceId filters results; neither is stated. The tool's role relative to other run tools is also underspecified.
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 single parameter serviceId is not mentioned in the description at all, and schema coverage is 0%. Since the schema only provides a UUID format, the description fails to explain the parameter's role (e.g., filtering runs by service) or its optionality.
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 title and description clearly identify a list operation for runs. The phrase 'reconcile and list' adds ambiguity, and the description doesn't explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_run or status_run, so it stops short of a top score.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose list_runs over the many run-related siblings (get_run, get_run_summary, status_run, open_run, wait_run). There is also no mention of whether the optional serviceId should be used to scope the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.