Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

bisect_good

Marks the current or specified candidate as known-good in a bisect session to help isolate the first bad version. Requires Kiln Pro.

Instructions

Mark the current (or explicit) candidate as known-good.

Needs Kiln Pro.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "bisect_good"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesThe bisect session's id, as ``bisect_start`` or ``list_bisect_sessions`` returned it.
version_idNoThe version to mark good. Omitted, the session's current candidate; a version already marked the opposite way is refused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id / description
      Added value: +"The bisect session's id, as ``bisect_start`` or ``list_bisect_sessions`` returned it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / version_id / description
      Added value: +"The version to mark good.  Omitted, the session's current candidate; a version already marked the opposite way is refused."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the 'Needs Kiln Pro' tier gate, which annotations cannot express, but says nothing about effects, reversibility, or the opposite-mark refusal that lives only in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero redundancy, with the core action front-loaded before the licensing caveat. The 'Needs Kiln Pro' line is terse but earns its place as a practical prerequisite.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys the action and the tier requirement. Only the refusal/edge-case behavior is left implicit in the schema, a minor gap.

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%, so both parameters, including the default-to-current behavior and the opposite-mark refusal, are fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the current-or-explicit distinction, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and object: "Mark the current (or explicit) candidate as known-good." An agent can distinguish this from the adjacent bisect_bad and bisect_skip by the "known-good" wording, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It notes that the candidate can be the current one or an explicit one, which implies usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never contrast it with bisect_bad or bisect_skip. Usage is left to inference from the name.

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