Detect and execute the correct project command in your working directory to generate outputs, optionally scoped to a specific target.
Run build with a detected command
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "build"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says a command is 'detected' and run. It does not disclose potential side effects, whether the build modifies the filesystem, what command is actually executed, whether it is safe, or what output or errors might occur. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes a command.
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 a single short sentence, which is efficient in length but severely under-specified. It omits essential information about command detection, parameter usage, and expected behavior, so the brevity reflects a lack of substance rather than well-structured conciseness.
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?
This build tool has no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, yet the description provides almost no context about how the command is detected, what environments are supported, or what a successful build looks like. Given the tool's likely side effects (running build commands), the description is wholly inadequate for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.
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 adds no meaning to the parameters 'cwd' and 'target'. The parameters are completely undocumented, and the phrase 'detected command' does not clarify how either parameter influences the build. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.
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 states the action 'Run build' and mentions 'detected command', so it is not a tautology and does identify the tool's primary function. However, 'detected command' is vague and does not clarify what build entails or how detection works, making the purpose only minimally clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related commands like run_tests or typecheck beyond naming 'build'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_tests, lint, format, or typecheck. The phrase 'detected command' suggests some auto-detection but gives no context about prerequisites or situations that warrant using build. There are no exclusions or explicit alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.