lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

github_get_workflow_run_logs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve GitHub Actions workflow run logs through your governed connector to debug CI/CD failures and analyze job output.

Instructions

Github connector operation get_workflow_run_logs (platform tool github.get_workflow_run_logs).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	Yes
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / effect

Added value: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds some useful context: the tool is governed by the exact project/account connector authority, and effect must be 'read' as verified by Spring. However, it does not describe what the returned logs contain, whether they are paginated, or any operational side effects beyond what the annotations already imply.

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 organized with a clear Args list and contains minimal prose, but it spends significant space on generic platform boilerplate such as idempotency_key, approval_ref, and project_ref. The first sentences redundantly repeat the tool name and platform tool identifier. It is structured but not optimally concise for conveying the operation's true purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Even though an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It omits what 'get_workflow_run_logs' actually does, how to specify the target workflow run inside the arguments JSON, and when to choose this over the closely related github_get_workflow_run tool. The agent would likely need external knowledge or trial-and-error to construct a valid request.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does add brief meanings for project_id, project_ref, connector_account_ref, idempotency_key, effect, and approval_ref, which is more than the bare schema provides. However, the central 'arguments' parameter remains an opaque JSON string with no indication of what GitHub-specific fields are required, such as owner, repo, or run_id, so an agent cannot determine how to construct the actual operation payload.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description opens with 'Github connector operation `get_workflow_run_logs`', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not explain what the operation does. 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority' is a routing constraint, not a functional description. It never states that this retrieves logs for a GitHub Actions workflow run, nor does it distinguish the tool from sibling github_get_workflow_run or github_list_workflow_runs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative GitHub workflow tools. The only usage-related statement, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority', describes plumbing rather than selection criteria. No mention is made of github_get_workflow_run, github_list_workflow_runs, or other siblings that an agent might confuse this with.

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

Deploy Server