Skip to main content
Glama
RikiGomes

woodpecker-mcp

by RikiGomes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get pipeline details

get_pipeline
Read-only

Retrieve a Woodpecker CI pipeline summary, web URL, and workflow steps by number or latest on a branch. Find failed step IDs to fetch logs next.

Instructions

Gets one pipeline by its per-repo number, or the newest one when number is "latest" (on the default branch, or on branch if given; branch is ignored for a concrete number). Returns the pipeline summary (including its concrete number), web URL, and each workflow with its steps (id, name, state, exit_code, type, error). Successful and skipped steps are only counted (passed, skipped) unless all_steps is true. failed_step_ids lists steps in state failure, error or killed; fetch their output with get_step_logs using the step id and this pipeline's concrete number. Returns no logs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository as "owner/name" (e.g. "acme/webapp") or a numeric Woodpecker repo id.
branchNoWith number="latest": pick the latest pipeline of this branch instead of the default branch.
numberYesPer-repo pipeline number, or "latest" for the newest pipeline on the default branch.
instanceYesWoodpecker instance name. Configured instances: default.
all_stepsNoList successful and skipped steps too (default: only count them).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / all_steps
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "List successful and skipped steps too (default: only count them).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / number / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them while adding substantial behavioral detail: the concrete number is echoed back, successful/skipped steps are only counted unless all_steps=true, failed_step_ids covers failure/error/killed states, and no logs are returned. That is material context beyond the safety hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and primary purpose, and every clause conveys a distinct rule rather than filler. It is a heavy single paragraph with nested parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly: pipeline summary with concrete number, web URL, per-workflow steps with their fields, the counting rule, and failed_step_ids semantics. Nothing needed to call it correctly or chain into get_step_logs is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value the schema does not: the number/branch interaction (branch silently ignored for a concrete number), the all_steps effect on what is listed versus counted, and the need to reuse the returned concrete number when calling get_step_logs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets one pipeline by its per-repo number') and immediately defines the two retrieval modes (concrete number vs. 'latest'), which separates it cleanly from list_pipelines and compare_pipelines. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear conditional context: 'branch' applies only when number='latest' and is ignored otherwise, and it explicitly routes the agent to get_step_logs for step output (which this tool does not return). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like diagnose_pipeline or get_pipeline_config, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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