Add or remove tags on an ML or QSAR run to label it as baseline, best, or final, enabling the run tree to highlight and group experiments.
Add or remove tags on a run (e.g. 'baseline', 'best', 'final'). The tree can highlight runs by tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| add | No | Tags to add, e.g. ['best', 'paper-fig-3'] | |
| remove | No | Tags to remove | |
| run_id | Yes | The run to tag |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation intent and a real side effect (tags drive tree highlighting), which is genuine context, but it omits idempotency, behavior on duplicate/absent tags, and 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the observable effect. Nothing wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves open whether add/remove are exclusive, how existing tags are preserved, and what errors to expect.
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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only naming-convention examples for tag values, which is a modest increment over what the schema states.
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?
Specific verb pair ('Add or remove') plus resource ('tags on a run'), with concrete tag examples. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like add_note or log_run, though it never names an alternative to bound the scope.
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?
The example tags ('baseline', 'best', 'final') imply the intended use case, and the second sentence hints at why tagging matters (tree highlighting). There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of alternatives, and no statement about whether add and remove can be combined in one call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.