Retrieve detailed configuration for a specific Zadig build, including project, service, and module details. Use this to inspect or verify build settings via the Zadig OpenAPI.
Get one Zadig build configuration detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build_name | Yes | ||
| project_key | No | ||
| service_name | No | ||
| service_module | No |
| 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not state return behavior, side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. It adds little operational clarity beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than demonstrating strong informative structure.
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?
With four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling build tools, this description is too thin to fully equip an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not clarify which parameters are needed for a specific lookup, what the returned detail contains, or how this tool relates to build list/create/update operations.
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?
The description does not mention or explain any of the four parameters (build_name, project_key, service_name, service_module), nor how they relate to identifying a build configuration. The schema has titles and defaults but no descriptions, and the description does not compensate for that low coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('one Zadig build configuration detail'), making the purpose reasonably clear. It signals singular retrieval but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like zadig_build_list.
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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zadig_build_list, zadig_build_update, or zadig_build_get's related tools. It implies single-object retrieval but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when another sibling is more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.