Fetch the builds linked to a specific Xcode Cloud CI build run ID and paginate results with an optional page limit.
GET /v1/ciBuildRuns/{id}/relationships/builds (GET /v1/ciBuildRuns/{id}/relationships/builds)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing. Only the literal 'GET' in the path hints at a read operation; there is no mention of pagination behavior (relevant given the limit parameter), authentication requirements, response shape, or whether the relationship returns identifiers vs full resources.
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 text is short but wastes its entire length duplicating the same path string inside redundant parentheses, adding zero information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it provides none. For a relationship-fetch endpoint in a toolset with hundreds of near-identical siblings, this is completely inadequate for correct selection.
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% with two documented parameters (id, limit), so the schema already does the heavy lifting and baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about what 'id' refers to or how 'limit' interacts with pagination.
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 is just the raw HTTP path repeated verbatim in parentheses, restating the tool name rather than describing the operation in plain language. An agent can infer it fetches the builds relationship for a CI build run, but there is no human-readable verb+resource statement and nothing to distinguish it from the sibling ci_build_runs_builds_get_to_many_related.
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 whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from the nearly identical *_get_to_many_related sibling. The agent is left to guess from naming convention alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.