Fetch detailed build information by ID, including configure, compile, and test summaries. Use it to inspect CI build failures and understand build outcomes.
Get detailed information about a specific build, including configure/compile/test summaries.
Args:
build_id: The CDash build ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build_id | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval through the verb 'Get' and identifies the summary sections returned. However, it does not mention authentication needs, failure modes, or whether any side effects exist, though those are less critical for a simple read-by-ID tool.
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?
The description is one clear purpose sentence plus one concise parameter line. There is no filler, and the key action and content scope are front-loaded.
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?
The input schema and output schema cover most mechanics, and the sole parameter is documented in the description. The main gap is context: the definition does not help an agent decide when to call this tool instead of a closely related sibling, and it lacks any usage exclusions.
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 0%, but the description explicitly explains the only parameter: 'build_id: The CDash build ID.' This adds real semantic meaning over the bare integer schema. It could be a 5 if it also described format or range constraints.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific build') and adds the key content areas ('configure/compile/test summaries'), which helps distinguish it from error-only or test-only siblings. It is not a 5 because it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state what it is not for.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With ten sibling get_* tools that overlap in scope (get_build_errors, get_build_tests, get_test_summary), an agent gets no help choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.