uos-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_plan

Generate a step-by-step build plan for a workspace and detect available host toolchains like cmake, ninja, mingw, or RosBE so the AI can execute the build.

Instructions

Return the concrete build plan for the workspace and check which host toolchains are present (cmake/ninja/mingw/RosBE). The AI runs the steps in src/.

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>"
    },
    "name": "build_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`toolchain`	No		rosbe
`workspace`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Return... and check'), but never states side effects, required permissions, or whether the plan is cached/generated. The note that 'The AI runs the steps in src/' is useful workflow context but not enough disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the workflow hint trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing 'The AI runs the steps in src/' is slightly ambiguous about who executes.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with zero schema coverage on two parameters and no annotations, the description leaves key invocation details (toolchain default/valid values, workspace semantics) unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the toolchain options (cmake/ninja/mingw/RosBE), which maps to the 'toolchain' parameter, but it never explains the default 'rosbe' or the required 'workspace' parameter.

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+resource: returning a build plan for a workspace and checking host toolchains, with concrete examples (cmake/ninja/mingw/RosBE). This is clearly distinct from VM-lifecycle and workspace-setup siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling (env_check) it overlaps with.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The overlap with env_check and workspace_status is left for the agent to infer, and there is no indication of when this should run in the build workflow.

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