Retrieve a complete event timeline for a single run using its run ID. Inspect each event to understand execution flow and evaluate coordination outcomes.
Return one run with its event timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description has to carry the behavioral burden, but it only states the returned content. It doesn't disclose error behavior for unknown run IDs, ordering or semantics of the event timeline, read-only status, or any permission requirements.
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?
A single sentence with the verb and key content front-loaded, containing no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter detail lookup.
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?
Although an output schema exists and the tool is a simple getter, the absence of id semantics, behavior notes, and usage context leaves an agent under-informed. The description is clear about the core outcome but not enough about invocation context.
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 meaning to run_id beyond what the schema's name and type already show. The phrase 'one run' weakly implies that run_id selects a run, but no format, uniqueness, or lookup semantics are provided.
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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('a run'), and the distinguishing payload ('its event timeline'), so an agent can tell this from generic detail tools. It is not a tautology of the tool name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling detail tools.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when to choose get_run_detail over nearby tools such as get_snapshot or get_assignment_detail. The selection context 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.