Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sailfish Devel MCP

Sailfish Devel MCP

by abranson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Android Build Hosts

sailfish_android_build_hosts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists configured remote Android/AppSupport build hosts so you can select targets for Sailfish OS builds and remote workflows.

Instructions

List configured remote Android/AppSupport build hosts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sailfish_android_build_hosts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits. It merely restates that the tool lists hosts, providing no transparency beyond the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail, which is appropriate for a simple no-parameter list tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, safety annotations present), the description provides enough context to understand its purpose. It could be slightly improved by clarifying what a 'build host' represents or what the output includes, but it is complete for the basic operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter documentation burden. Per the rubric, zero parameters sets a baseline of 4, and there is no additional parameter semantics for the description to clarify.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured remote Android/AppSupport build hosts'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sailfish_android_build or sailfish_android_build_status; an agent must infer that this tool lists hosts rather than performing builds or checking build status.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or any alternatives such as sailfish_android_build or sailfish_android_build_status. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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