Fetch a GitHub Actions workflow run by repository and run ID, including its jobs and the failed steps for failed jobs. Use it to inspect CI failures and diagnose what broke.
One run with its jobs and, for failed jobs, the steps that failed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | Yes | ||
| jobs | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about the response shape by mentioning jobs and failed steps, but it says nothing about error behavior, missing runs, or access requirements.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Its brevity is efficient, though it may be too sparse given the undocumented parameters.
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, so return-value detail is less critical. However, the description leaves both required inputs completely unexplained and provides no usage context or error semantics, which is a significant gap for an agent invoking the tool.
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%, and the description never explains the two required parameters. An agent must infer that 'repo' identifies the repository and 'run_id' identifies the run, with no format or scoping guidance.
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 clearly identifies a single-run retrieval tool and names the nested content it returns (jobs and failed-job steps). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_runs or job_log, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_runs or failure_summary, and no stated preconditions. Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'One run'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.