Skip to main content
Glama
JoeGlenn1213

ActionD

by JoeGlenn1213
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

actiond_run_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a structured run report for a repository, aggregating commits, CI job verdicts, and task handoff status to show what changed, why, and how well it was verified, with explicit unknown results.

Instructions

Generate a goal run report for a repository: one structured JSON that reconstructs what a run changed and how well it was verified, without writing any new state. Choose actiond_handoff_pack instead when the goal is handing the work to another agent rather than verifying a completed run. Aggregates git log, ActionD CI/CD job verdicts, and — when a task management system report is available — the task's handoff status into sections that answer: what changed (commits), why (declared task intent), did it work (per-job verdicts pass/fail/unknown), how trustworthy the results are (verification depth and verifier provenance), can someone else continue the work, and can it be rolled back (recovery points with evidence levels). Anything not knowable is reported as an explicit "unknown" — never silently converted to pass/fail — and a Limitations list states what the report cannot yet guarantee. Optional path (defaults to the current directory), commit (focus the report on one commit), task_id/project_id (look up the task report), and limit (commits to include, default 10).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoRepository path (defaults to the current directory)
limitNoNumber of git log commits to include (default 10)
commitNoFocus the report on a specific commit (default: the most recent N commits)
task_idNoTask ID; when provided, the report also looks up the task report and its handoff status
project_idNoProject ID in the task management system (defaults to the repository name)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / commit / description
      Previous value: -"聚焦某个 commit（缺省为最近 N 个提交）"New value: +"Focus the report on a specific commit (default: the most recent N commits)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"git log 条数（默认 10）"New value: +"Number of git log commits to include (default 10)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"仓库路径（默认当前目录）"New value: +"Repository path (defaults to the current directory)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Previous value: -"RMS project id（默认取仓库名）"New value: +"Project ID in the task management system (defaults to the repository name)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / task_id / description
      Previous value: -"RMS task id；提供后报告会查询任务报告与交接状态"New value: +"Task ID; when provided, the report also looks up the task report and its handoff status"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'without writing any new state' and outlines the read-only data sources (git log, CI/CD verdicts, task management). Adds modest context beyond the annotations.

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 functional but somewhat redundant, repeating the parameter list both in the main prose and the schema. The long sentence enumerating report sections is dense but not overly verbose. Adequate but not exemplary in conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the report's structure: sections for what changed, why, did it work, trustworthiness, continuation, rollback, and a Limitations list. This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, and the prose repeats the same information without adding deeper meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% and no extra nuance is introduced.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'goal run report', and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool handoff_pack for a different goal. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly provides a when-not-to-use directive: 'Choose actiond_handoff_pack instead when the goal is handing the work to another agent rather than verifying a completed run.' This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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