get_run_detailsFetches full details of a single simulation run by UUID, including status and evaluation results when available. Use after a run to inspect scores and outcome.
Fetches the full details of a single simulation run by its uuid, including its status and the evaluation results when they are available. Use after a run to inspect scores and outcome.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| simulation_uuid | Yes | The run’s uuid. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing that evaluation results are conditional ('when they are available'), warning the agent that scores may be absent for an in-progress run. It says nothing about error behavior for bad/unknown uuids.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage note second. The second sentence mildly restates the first ('inspect scores and outcome' vs 'status and the evaluation results'), a small redundancy but not bloat.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does name the key fields (status, evaluation results) plus their conditional availability. For a one-param read tool this is essentially sufficient; only uuid error handling is unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter whose description ('The run's uuid.') matches what the tool description conveys. The description adds no format, constraint, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Fetches') and resource ('full details of a single simulation run'), with the identifier ('by its uuid') and expected payload (status, evaluation results). It implicitly separates itself from the list_recent_runs sibling by scoping to a single run, but never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
'Use after a run to inspect scores and outcome' gives clear timing and intent for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming the alternative (list_recent_runs) or stating when not to use it, so it is context without full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.