Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ares DevOps MCP Server

Ares DevOps MCP Server

by Cognitive-Stack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

trigger-pipeline

Trigger a CI pipeline using its ID and required parameters to start automated builds.

Instructions

Trigger a CI pipeline with parameters

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": {
      "pipelineId": "<pipelineId>",
      "parameters": "<parameters>"
    },
    "name": "trigger-pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parametersYesPipeline parameters
pipelineIdYesID of the pipeline

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether a build is started), idempotency, or rate limits. The phrase 'trigger' implies a mutable action but no further details.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely short (5 words), which is concise but not necessarily effective. It sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity. Could be more informative without being verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, so description should hint at return values (e.g., pipeline run ID). It does not. For a tool with a complex nested parameter (additionalProperties), no guidance on valid keys is given. Incomplete for a state-changing operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'with parameters' but does not explain valid keys for the parameters object, which has additionalProperties allowing arbitrary fields.

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 clearly states the action (trigger) and resource (CI pipeline). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list-pipelines, but lacks detail about which CI system or what triggering entails.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., pipeline must exist), or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools