Retrieve detailed information for a specific build using its build ID, including configuration and current status.
Get detailed information about a specific build.
Args: build: Build ID
Returns: Build information including configuration and status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'configuration and status' which gives some idea of return content, but doesn't state whether this is read-only, requires auth, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a read tool this is minimally adequate.
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?
Very short and front-loaded with purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are terse but not wasteful. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant since an output schema exists.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values in detail, yet it provides a brief summary ('configuration and status') which is fine. However, for a tool with no annotations and a solo parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description lacks behavioral detail about auth or error conditions.
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%, so the schema only provides the parameter name 'build' with no meaning. The description says 'build: Build ID', which restates the name and adds the word 'ID'. This is slightly better than nothing but insufficient compensation for a 0% coverage gap.
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 (Get) and resource (build), and the word 'specific' implies retrieval by identifier. It doesn't differentiate from komodo_list_builds or komodo_get_deployment, though the singular 'build' vs plural 'builds' helps.
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 on when to use this versus komodo_list_builds or how it relates to komodo_run_build/komodo_stop_build. The description simply describes the operation without routing the agent to the correct sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.