compose-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_gradle_build

Runs a specified Gradle task and returns structured JSON results, letting agents verify that code changes compile before making further changes.

Instructions

Run a Gradle task and return structured result.

This lets the agent verify that code changes compile successfully
before continuing with more changes.

Args:
    task: gradle task to run (whitelist enforced: assembleDebug, assembleRelease, test, lint, clean).
    timeout_seconds: max execution time (default 5 min).

Returns:
    JSON with {success, exit_code, duration_ms, errors, warnings}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	No		assembleDebug
`timeout_seconds`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the whitelist enforcement and the 5-minute default timeout, but says nothing about side effects (build artifacts written to disk), environment prerequisites, or whether it is a long-running/blocking operation. The safety and side-effect profile of an execution tool is left unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly sectioned into Args and Returns. Every line is short and purposeful. The Args/Returns headers are slightly redundant given the schema, but the whitelist values inside them earn their place.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, allowed task values, timeout, and result shape adequately. What is missing is behavioral context that annotations would normally supply, such as side effects and execution environment, keeping it from a 5.

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 compensate, and it does: it enumerates the accepted task values (assembleDebug, assembleRelease, test, lint, clean) that the schema does not expose as an enum, and states the timeout default in human terms. The one gap is that the timeout is not described as seconds-vs-milliseconds beyond the field name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a Gradle task and return structured result.' That is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_allowed_gradle_tasks. It stops short of naming an adjacent sibling to differentiate itself explicitly, so it lands at a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear use case: 'verify that code changes compile successfully before continuing with more changes,' which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative (e.g. the sibling that lists allowed tasks), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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