Retrieve past image-generation runs and their original image or parameter paths, without returning image base64 or credentials.
Find previous runs and original image/parameter paths. Does not return image base64 or credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| run_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuine output-scope context (no image base64, no credentials), which is useful, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a "run" record actually contains.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful negative constraint. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing "original image/parameter paths" is slightly opaque.
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 must carry the return-value burden; it does partially by ruling out base64 and credentials, but leaves the record shape, ordering, and parameter behavior unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps for a history-listing tool.
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?
Both parameters (limit, run_id) have zero schema description coverage, and the description does not mention either one. It neither explains what run_id selects nor how limit bounds the results, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.
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 gives a verb ("Find") and an object ("previous runs") with an added note about what is returned ("original image/parameter paths"). However, "runs" is never defined, and it does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings like novelai_metadata or novelai_schema that might also hold historical/parameter data.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The line about not returning base64 implicitly points elsewhere for images, but the routing is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.