Queue a retry after diagnostics. Defaults to dry-run and returns a retry build identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| build_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| dry_run | Yes | ||
| build_id | Yes | ||
| observed_at | Yes | ||
| retry_build_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "build_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "dry_run": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "observed_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_build_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "build_id",
+ "retry_build_id",
+ "dry_run",
+ "status",
+ "observed_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by mentioning dry-run defaulting and the return of a retry build identifier. Still, it does not clarify what dry_run=false does, whether actual side effects occur by default, or how a real retry is requested.
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 a single efficient sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and includes the most important behavioral detail, the dry-run default.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves ambiguity about the actual effect of dry_run and does not state prerequisites such as the build having failed or diagnostics being complete. An agent could infer most usage but not all side-effect nuances.
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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only echoes the dry-run default already present in the schema and gives no additional semantics for build_id or how dry_run changes execution.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Queue'), the resource ('a retry'), and the context ('after diagnostics'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools because it uses 'retry' rather than 'get', 'list', 'read', 'run', or 'deploy', though it does not explicitly contrast with ci_run_build_command.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: use this after diagnostics, and it defaults to dry-run, implying a safe preview mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for actually running/deploying builds.
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.