s2docs MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Source 2 build run’s status, exit code, summary counts, material-guard warnings, and artifacts by run ID to verify whether a map build is clean.

Instructions

One build run's record: status, exit code, parsed summary counts, material guard and artifacts.

    `warnings` carries the MATERIAL GUARD findings when the log referenced missing/reserved materials
    (Valve's `_vrf/` subtree, or another map's `maps/<other>/` subtree): counts per kind plus the first
    few offending paths. Such a run can still be 'succeeded' — the resourcecompiler exits 0 and the map
    then error-renders as a red/black checkerboard, so treat a non-None `warnings` as NOT clean.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	Yes	Run id from build_start, e.g. 'b-1a2b3c4d'

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`kind`	No		build
`lock`	No	The host lock this run holds (owner build:<id>), when it is still its own
`notes`	No
`owner`	Yes	Host-lock owner holding this run's lease, 'build:<id>'
`handle`	No	Process handle (pid) when known
`status`	Yes
`command`	Yes
`host_id`	Yes
`summary`	No	Parsed counts from the log summary line
`web_url`	No	Absolute URL of this run's page in the web UI (Activity page)
`log_path`	No
`warnings`	No	Material-guard findings; None when the log was clean or unscanned
`artifacts`	No
`exit_code`	No
`created_at`	Yes
`updated_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds critical domain behavior beyond them: a run can appear 'succeeded' while material guard warnings indicate the map will error-render as a checkerboard. This is a high-value gotcha that directly affects interpretation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence front-loads the record contents, and the second explains the warnings guard. It is somewhat detailed but the material-guard explanation earns its place because it prevents a critical misinterpretation.

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 an output schema, annotations, and complete schema coverage for the single parameter, the description is nearly complete. It explains the warning field's behavioral meaning but could briefly clarify its relationship to build_wait and build_log.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single run_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from build_start. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema carries the full burden.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the resource as 'One build run's record' and enumerates what it contains: status, exit code, summary counts, material guard warnings, and artifacts. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' and does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as build_log, build_wait, or build_list.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It does not state when to use this tool versus build_log, build_wait, or build_list. The only implied usage is inspecting a single run's record, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server