pipeline_healthAnalyze CI/CD pipeline health with success rate and duration trend metrics. Detect failing pipelines and optimize performance.
Analyze CI/CD pipeline health (success rate, duration trends).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to look back (default: 30) | |
| github_ref | Yes | GitHub 'owner/repo' reference |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyze' and lists two metrics; it does not disclose whether this is a read-only aggregation, what data source is queried, whether authorization is needed, or how results are structured. The output schema exists but the description itself adds little behavioral context.
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?
A single sentence with no filler: the primary action and analytical focus are front-loaded in a compact parenthetical. Every word earns its place.
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 schema covers both parameters and an output schema exists, so the basic call shape is complete. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral disclosure leaves the description only minimally viable for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.
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 100%, so both github_ref and days are already documented structurally. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the tool's focus, which is acceptable per baseline 3.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze CI/CD pipeline health' with the parenthetical scope 'success rate, duration trends'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_test_coverage and analyze_code_quality, which focus on other aspects of quality.
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 parenthetical implies the tool is for pipeline success-rate and duration analysis, but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.