cicd-aiops

pipeline_detail

Read-only

Read full details for a single CI/CD pipeline run in self-hosted GitLab or Gitea by project and pipeline IDs to inspect status, jobs, and failure context.

Instructions

[READ] One pipeline/run's full detail.

Args: project: Project id or full path. pipeline: Pipeline/run id (from list_pipelines). target: Server target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "pipeline": "<pipeline>"
    },
    "name": "pipeline_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`project`	Yes
`pipeline`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix simply echoes this. The description adds a minor behavioral note ('omit [target] for the default') but says nothing about return volume, contents, or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact Args block; every line carries information without redundancy.

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 and minimal annotations, the description is adequate for a read-detail tool, covering all params and id sourcing. It stops short of describing what 'full detail' contains, which would help an agent decide between this and pipeline_jobs.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does so well for all three params: project as id or full path, pipeline id sourced from list_pipelines, and target with an explicit omit-for-default instruction. It compensates meaningfully for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource ('one pipeline/run's full detail'), distinguishing it from the sibling list_pipelines. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other pipeline-scoped reads like pipeline_jobs or job_trace_tail.

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?

The hint '(from list_pipelines)' implies the workflow for sourcing the pipeline id. Beyond that, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as pipeline_jobs or job_trace_tail for deeper drill-down.

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