Public read-only status feed; no bearer token is required. List active failed CI builds, then pass a returned build_id to get_build_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| project | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| builds | Yes | ||
| observed_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "builds": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "observed_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "builds",
+ "total",
+ "observed_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'no bearer token is required' and 'active failed' filtering, plus the fact that the response contains build_id values to feed into get_build_status. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.
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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the access model ('Public read-only...') and the second states the core action plus the follow-up workflow. No redundant phrasing or restating of the tool name.
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 simple list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers auth, scope, and next step. It doesn't explicitly explain how limit/project affect results, but these are self-evident from the schema. The safety profile is fully covered by annotations, so nothing critical is missing.
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?
The description does not mention the 'limit' or 'project' parameters at all, and the input schema has 0% description coverage. The agent must rely on parameter names and constraints alone, with no guidance on how project filtering or limit pagination affects the list. Description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 specific action and resource: 'List active failed CI builds'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly connecting to ci_get_build_status, making it clear this is the enumeration step for failed builds, not the status lookup or repository listing.
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 description provides a clear usage pattern: list failed builds first, then pass a returned build_id to get_build_status. It also clarifies this is a public no-auth endpoint. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer ci_list_repositories, but the context is sufficiently directive for the primary use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.