projectpulse-mcp

check_ci_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch recent GitHub Actions workflow runs and CI build statuses for any repository. Check pipeline results quickly to identify failures.

Instructions

Fetches recent CI/CD workflow runs (GitHub Actions) for a GitHub repository.

Side effects: None. This is a strictly read-only operation.
Data sources: GitHub REST API (actions/runs).
Auth requirements: No authentication required for public repositories. Uses configured token if available.
Rate limits: Subject to standard GitHub API limits.
Return shape: Returns a JSON array of workflow runs including name, status, conclusion, head_branch, created_at, updated_at, and html_url.
Usage guidelines: Use this tool ONLY to check raw GitHub Actions workflow history and CI build statuses. DO NOT use this tool for other analyses:
- For a computed A-F health score grading, use 'get_health_score' instead.
- For retrieving basic repository stats (stars, forks), use 'get_repo_health' instead.
- For calculated DORA metrics, use 'get_dora_metrics' instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	GitHub repository name (e.g., 'sdk')
`limit`	No	Number of runs to return
`owner`	Yes	GitHub repository owner (e.g., 'modelcontextprotocol')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runs`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.14Sep 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "runs": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "conclusion": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "head_branch": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "html_url": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "updated_at": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "name",
+          "status",
+          "conclusion",
+          "head_branch",
+          "created_at",
+          "updated_at",
+          "html_url"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "runs"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.4Sep 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / owner / description

Previous value: -"GitHub repository owner"New value: +"GitHub repository owner (e.g., 'modelcontextprotocol')"

changedInput schema / properties / repo / description

Previous value: -"GitHub repository name"New value: +"GitHub repository name (e.g., 'sdk')"

First observedv1.1.3Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds behavioral details: it explicitly states 'strictly read-only operation', notes auth requirements ('No authentication required for public repositories. Uses configured token if available.'), and mentions rate limit exposure. This goes beyond the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear bullet points for side effects, data sources, auth, rate limits, return shape, and usage guidelines. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value without fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple and the description covers the essential context: what it does, data source, auth, rate limits, return shape, and usage boundaries. The presence of an output schema (not shown) and the description of the return fields make it complete for correct invocation. No critical gaps are evident.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — all three parameters (owner, repo, limit) are described in the schema with types, defaults, and constraints. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it fetches recent CI/CD workflow runs for a GitHub repository, using specific verbs and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_health_score and get_dora_metrics by stating it is only for raw workflow history, leaving no ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('ONLY to check raw GitHub Actions workflow history') and when not to, listing alternative tools for health scores, repo stats, and DORA metrics. This is clear when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server