Run a specific Komodo build by ID with optional environment variables or timeout, then return its execution status and result.
Execute/run a build.
Args: build: Build ID to execute options: Optional execution options (e.g., environment variables, timeout)
Returns: Build execution result and status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | Yes | ||
| options | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that execution returns 'result and status' but omits critical execution traits: whether the call blocks or is async/long-running, whether it needs auth, and whether it can be stopped. For an execution tool this is a notable gap.
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 verb is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan with no filler. It is slightly boilerplate but every line serves the definition.
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 return-value explanation is appropriately light. Yet for a no-annotation execution tool, the description is incomplete on operational behavior (blocking vs async, auth, interaction with komodo_stop_build), leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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 description must compensate, and it largely does: it identifies 'build' as the Build ID to execute and 'options' as optional execution options with concrete examples (environment variables, timeout). This adds real meaning beyond the bare string/anyOf schema, though the options example remains loosely specified.
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+resource ('Execute/run a build') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like komodo_create_build, komodo_update_build and komodo_delete_build. However, it does not name or contrast with the closest counterpart, komodo_stop_build, leaving the run/stop distinction to inference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent is not told when to run a build versus stopping one (komodo_stop_build) or how run differs from komodo_run_deployment. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.