List repositories and their latest build state. Failed builds include a build_id for get_build_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | cinderroute | |
| page | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| visibility | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| observed_at | Yes | ||
| repositories | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / page / minimumAdded value: +1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "observed_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "page": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "repositories": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "repositories",
+ "page",
+ "total",
+ "observed_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / org / defaultAdded value: +"cinderroute"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "org"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and discloses that failed builds include a build_id, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or any side effects. For a list operation, this is partial but acceptable.
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 two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the build_id detail earns its place. Slightly more guidance could be added, but the structure is efficient.
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 description covers the essential purpose and the build_id link, and the schema provides defaults and enums for the parameters. However, it omits any mention of filtering or pagination conventions, leaving the overall picture incomplete for a tool with four optional parameters and no annotations.
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 adds no meaning for any of the four parameters. It does not explain how org, page, language, or visibility affect results, leaving the agent to infer everything from parameter names and schema types.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List repositories and their latest build state'), which makes the tool's main function clear. It also adds a useful cross-reference to get_build_status via build_id, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ci_list_failed_builds.
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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The note about build_id implies a potential follow-up to get_build_status, but it never says when to choose this over ci_list_failed_builds or how it fits into a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.