Fetch recorded ML pipeline runs newest first; filter by step, status, or parent run to inspect experiment history and cap results as needed.
List runs, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| step | No | Only runs of this step | |
| limit | No | Maximum runs to return (1-1000) | |
| status | No | Only runs with this status | |
| parent_run_id | No | Only direct children of this run |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are ordered newest first, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or how pagination behaves beyond the schema's limit parameter.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes directly to the operation and its ordering behavior.
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?
The schema fully documents all parameters and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values or parameter details. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves important behavioral and selection context unstated.
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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the ordering note, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('List runs') plus an ordering behavior ('newest first'), so an agent can understand the core operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as best_run or log_run, though those appear to be distinct operations.
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 alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.