Triggers an EAS workflow run from a git reference. Provide either appId (from app.json "extra.eas.projectId") OR appFullName (e.g., "@owner/my-app"). The workflow file must exist at the specified git reference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | No | ||
| gitRef | Yes | ||
| fileName | Yes | ||
| appFullName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the prerequisite that the workflow file must exist at the git reference. It does not disclose async behavior, return value, or how to monitor the triggered run.
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 carry all key information; the first sentence front-loads the action, and the second packs identifier alternatives and the prerequisite. No filler.
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 side-effecting run tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and identification alternatives. It could improve by specifying what the trigger returns or that the run is asynchronous.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining appId's source, appFullName's format, and the OR relationship, and by implying fileName is the workflow file and gitRef selects the git reference. It could be more explicit about fileName and gitRef formats.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Triggers an EAS workflow run from a git reference.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling workflow tools such as create, validate, cancel, info, and logs.
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 clear invocation context by identifying the project via appId or appFullName and states the prerequisite that the workflow file must exist at the git reference. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.