status_runCheck the status of a run by providing its run ID. This alias is deprecated, so use get_run for current and future operations.
Deprecated compatibility alias; use get_run. Scheduled for removal in 0.3.0.
| 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 and idempotentHint true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing deprecation and the removal schedule. As a compatibility alias, failing to describe output details is acceptable since expected behavior is get_run's 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 three short clauses with no wasted words; the deprecation and replacement are front-loaded. It earns every word it uses.
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 deprecated one-parameter read-only alias, the description provides essential routing and lifecycle information, and the schema fully constrains runId. It is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly, though output shape is left to get_run.
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 description provides no parameter information, and schema description coverage is 0%. The single runId parameter is well-constrained by the schema's UUID format and pattern, reducing risk, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions as required at low coverage.
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 clearly identifies the tool as 'get Harness run status' and the description explains it is a deprecated compatibility alias, so the action and resource are clear. It does not restate the behavior fully, but it differentiates itself from get_run by pointing to it as the replacement.
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 explicitly instructs 'use get_run' and warns 'Scheduled for removal in 0.3.0', giving the agent a clear directive to choose the alternative over this deprecated tool. This is a precise when-not-to-use instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.