MCP Server By TestMu AI

SmartUI Build Query

smartui_build_query

Read-only

List SmartUI builds in a project, get one build, or get the CI gate verdict for a build. Use action=gate in pipelines: it returns verdict (passed|failed|pending_approval|running|error), totals (including missing screenshots the baseline has), blocking_comparison_ids, and blocking[] with per-item detail. verdict=failed covers rejections AND builds that dropped baseline screenshots. Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "smartui_build_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (list only, 1-based)
`limit`	No	Page size (list only, default 50, max 200)
`action`	Yes	list builds, get one build, or gate (CI verdict)
`branch`	No	Filter builds by branch (list only)
`build_id`	No	Build id — required for get/gate (or use build_name)
`build_name`	No	Build name. get/gate: exact name, an alternative to build_id. list: case-insensitive substring filter, applied client-side to the newest 200 builds (upstream has no name filter).
`project_id`	Yes	Project id (required)
`build_status`	No	Substring filter on build status (list only), e.g. "pending-approval"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / build_name / description

Previous value: -"Build name — alternative to build_id for get/gate"New value: +"Build name. get/gate: exact name, an alternative to build_id. list: case-insensitive substring filter, applied client-side to the newest 200 builds (upstream has no name filter)."

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" only confirms them. The description earns credit for disclosing semantics annotations cannot: the full verdict enum, that totals include missing baseline screenshots, that blocking[] carries per-item detail, and notably that verdict=failed conflates rejections with dropped baseline screenshots.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the three operations, then the high-value gate return contract, with no filler sentences. Minor waste is repeating "Read-only" already asserted by readOnlyHint=true annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates for the gate path by enumerating verdicts and blocking fields. However, list and get return shapes and pagination behavior go unmentioned, leaving an agent guessing about the other two action paths of this 8-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including action enum meanings, build_id/build_name dual usage, and the client-side substring caveat, so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description only re-expresses action=gate usage and adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema — baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names the resource (SmartUI builds) and all three distinct verbs/operations (list, get, gate verdict), so an agent can map action values to intent without opening the schema. The resource itself separates it from smartui_project_query and smartui_comparison_query siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use action=gate in pipelines" gives an explicit context that selects one of the three actions, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying when NOT to use this tool or naming SmartUI siblings (e.g. baseline/comparison tools) as alternatives for related questions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All MCP Server By TestMu AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?