Detects and executes a project's build command, returning stdout, stderr, and exit code so agents can verify builds and diagnose failures.
Detect and run the project's build command, returning stdout/stderr/exit_code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| timeout_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return contract (stdout/stderr/exit_code) and that the command is auto-detected, but says nothing about side effects (build artifacts written to disk), blocking duration, or what happens when detection fails or the timeout fires.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states action, detection behavior, and return payload with no filler.
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?
The description adequately covers what the tool does and returns for a simple two-parameter tool, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage it leaves the timeout and side-effect behavior undocumented.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions any parameter. Neither repo_path (which directory the build runs in) nor timeout_ms (how long before the build is killed) is explained, so the agent gets no semantics beyond the bare schema names.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('run the project's build command') and adds auto-detection plus the return payload (stdout/stderr/exit_code). It implicitly separates itself from run_tests/run_lint/run_typecheck by naming the build step, though it never explicitly contrasts with the generic run_command sibling.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for compiling/building a repo. It never states when to prefer it over run_tests, run_command, or project_detect, and offers no preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.