cicd-aiops

cicd_overview

Read-only

Summarize self-hosted GitLab/Gitea CI/CD version, token identity, projects, and runners in one call; return partial results with errors if sub-calls fail.

Instructions

[READ] One-shot summary: version, token identity, projects, runners.

Resilient — a failing sub-call degrades to a partial summary with an 'errors' list instead of crashing.

Args: target: Server target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cicd_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a failing sub-call degrades to a partial summary with an 'errors' list instead of crashing, which tells the agent to expect possible partial results. It does not discuss auth or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the '[READ]' tag and the aggregation scope, followed by the resilience note and the arg. Every line carries information; the 'Args:' block is standard formatting rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to say what the summary contains (version, token identity, projects, runners) and how failures surface (errors list). For a single-optional-parameter read tool, this is close to complete, though it could note result granularity briefly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does: 'target: Server target name from config; omit for the default.' That fully explains both the meaning and the default behavior, compensating for the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('One-shot summary') and enumerates exactly what is aggregated: version, token identity, projects, runners. This implicitly separates it from granular siblings like server_version, list_projects, and list_runners, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'One-shot summary' implies the intended context (use when you want a broad snapshot rather than individual list calls), and the '[READ]' tag signals a safe query. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not statement or named alternative for deeper inspection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.