get_buildRetrieve detailed information for a specific Unity Cloud Build build using its target and build number, so you can inspect build status and results.
Get detailed information about a specific build.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project ID or name (defaults to the configured default project) | |
| buildtarget | Yes | Build target ID | |
| build_number | Yes | Build number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, and the description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on what fields are returned, whether it errors on a nonexistent build, or how the default project is resolved. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or padding. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but nothing present is wasted.
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 simple read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is minimally viable. It stops short of clarifying what 'detailed information' contains or how the optional project default behaves, which would help given the absence of an output schema.
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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond 'a specific build', so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'specific' plus the required buildtarget/build_number signals it retrieves a single build, implicitly contrasting with list_builds. It does not distinguish itself from get_build_log, which is the nearest sibling overlap.
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?
Purely a statement of function with no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like list_builds or get_build_log. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.