Lists recent build runs, newest first, and optionally filters by host or active status.
Recent build runs (newest first), optionally one host and/or active only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | No | Only queued/running runs | |
| host_id | No | Restrict to one host |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds result ordering (newest first), which annotations cannot express, but omits pagination, result limits, and retention window for a list operation.
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 fragment with no waste; the resource and ordering come first, filters second. The compressed 'and/or' phrasing is slightly terse but still parseable.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. For a low-complexity two-optional-param list tool it is nearly sufficient, with only result count/pagination left unstated.
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% and both parameters are already documented ('Only queued/running runs', 'Restrict to one host'). The description only restates those filters in shorthand, adding no syntax or default-behavior detail, so baseline 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+resource (list recent build runs) plus ordering (newest first) and optional filters, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like build_status or diff_builds, which is the only gap.
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?
The filter conditions ('optionally one host and/or active only') imply the browse-recent-runs use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. build_status, build_log, or diff_builds guidance and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.