List active failed CI builds. Start here, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'active failed' but does not explain what 'active' means, whether the list is sorted, whether it includes pagination, or what happens if no builds exist. It also doesn't disclose any side effects, though listing is likely read-only.
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 with no waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the workflow hint is concise.
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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about parameter semantics and behavioral details like ordering or filtering. It is adequate for a simple list tool but has clear gaps.
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 does not explain the 'limit' or 'project' parameters. The schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds no meaning about how these parameters affect the query, such as whether 'project' is required for filtering or how limit interacts with pagination.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('active failed CI builds'), and the phrase 'Start here' signals it is an entry point. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ci_list_repositories, but the resource is clear enough that an agent can tell it apart.
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 gives explicit guidance to start here and then pass a returned build_id to get_build_status, which tells the agent when to use this tool and how it fits into a workflow. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the workflow hint is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.