Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-lsp

agent-lsp

by blackwell-systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

run_build

Compile your project in the workspace using its detected language, with optional path narrowing, and receive structured error reports for quick fixes.

Instructions

Compile the project at workspace_dir using the detected workspace language. Language-specific dispatch (no arbitrary shell execution): go build ./..., cargo build, tsc --noEmit, mypy . (Python typecheck proxy). Optional path param narrows scope. Returns: { success: bool, errors: [{file, line, column, message}], raw: string }. Does not require start_lsp.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace_dir": "<workspace_dir>"
    },
    "name": "run_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
languageNo
workspace_dirYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.0
  2. Removedv0.15.0
  3. Addedv0.11.1
  4. Removedv0.10.0
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: language dispatch, no shell execution, optional path narrowing, and return structure. However, potential side effects like build artifact creation are not mentioned.

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?

Three sentences pack purpose, behavior, and output format with no redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

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, the description covers main use, parameters, and return type. Lacks details on language parameter interaction and path format, but still sufficient for a build tool.

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?

Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning to workspace_dir (project directory) and path (scope narrow), and implies language auto-detection. The 'language' parameter is not explicitly explained.

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 compiles the project using language-specific build commands (go build, cargo build, tsc, mypy), distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_tests or start_lsp.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly notes no arbitrary shell execution and that start_lsp is not required, but does not contrast with other build-like tools or specify when not to use it.

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