Retrieve run status, typed artifacts, and a bounded redacted sample by run ID. Use this to monitor crawl progress and inspect outputs from Chinese social platforms.
Get run status, typed artifacts, and a bounded redacted result sample.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| record_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal meaningful traits: the result is 'bounded' and 'redacted,' and 'Get' signals a read-only operation. However, it does not explain redaction rules, the exact bound, or behavior with different record_type values.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the verb and resource. It could carry more useful detail, but structurally it is efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool with no annotations, three undocumented parameters, and several overlapping sibling tools, this description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'typed artifacts' means, how limit applies, what the bound is, or how this tool differs from status, artifacts, and preview.
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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The three parameters—run_id, limit, and record_type—must be inferred from their names and defaults. The phrase 'typed artifacts' only loosely hints at record_type.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names three concrete resources: run status, typed artifacts, and a bounded redacted result sample. This clearly conveys the core action, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings like status, artifacts, and preview.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus status, artifacts, preview, or export. The description gives no context about prerequisites, such as whether a run must be completed, or when a bounded sample is preferable to a full result.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.