Monitor an OBS project build until completion in a detached local job, then check or cancel the job when needed.
Watch OBS until completion in a detached local job; use sailfish_build_status/cancel or the jobs CLI waiter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | No | Named OBS server configured in paths.obs_servers. | |
| package | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | Command timeout in seconds. | |
| api_alias | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't carry: this blocks until completion and runs as a detached local job. However, it omits what happens on timeout, whether the job is retrievable afterward, and whether credentials to the OBS server are required.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the core behavior before the alternative-tool pointer. It is short and has no filler, though the trailing clause reads as an incomplete sentence and slightly muddies the routing advice.
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?
For a 5-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world tool with no output schema and only 40% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the required project param, the OBS package/project targeting, api_alias, or what the caller gets back from a detached watch job.
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 coverage is only 40% (server and timeout are documented; package, project, and api_alias are not), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It never mentions project (required), package, or api_alias, so it does not compensate for the 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+resource ('Watch OBS until completion') plus the execution mechanism ('detached local job'), which is more specific than the title alone. It orients the agent against siblings by naming sailfish_build_status/cancel as the polling alternatives, though the distinction is compressed into a clause.
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?
It gestures at alternatives (sailfish_build_status/cancel, jobs CLI waiter) but as a bare fragment, leaving it unclear whether these are substitutes for this tool or follow-up tools. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisites, and no statement of what 'detached' means for the caller.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.