Retrieve build records from Kiwi TCMS using filters like product or version to identify available builds for test planning.
List builds. Typical filter: {"version__product": <product_id>} or {"version": <version_id>}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Kiwi ORM filter dict, e.g. {"name": "My Product"} or {"product_id": 3}. Omit or pass {} to list everything. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List builds' implies a read-only operation and the typical filters convey the query behavior, but it does not disclose pagination, response shape, or any limits. This is acceptable for a minimal list tool but not richly transparent.
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 one concise sentence plus two practical examples. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it names the operation and the important filter patterns. The main gaps are the absence of explicit return-value expectations and any pagination/discovery details, but the schema covers the list-all behavior.
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?
The schema already documents the `query` parameter and its generic ORM-filter/list-everything behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful build-specific filter keys (`version__product`, `version`) beyond the schema's generic examples, which helps the agent construct correct calls.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'List builds.' It also provides the domain-specific filters (version__product, version), which clearly differentiates this from sibling list tools like kiwi_get_products and kiwi_get_versions.
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?
The typical filters strongly imply when to use this tool: when builds need to be listed/filtered by product or version. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but for a simple list tool this is sufficiently clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.