phabricator-mcp

phabricator_build_search

Read-only

Search and filter Harbormaster CI build results by status, plan, or initiator to monitor and troubleshoot builds.

Instructions

Search Harbormaster builds (CI/build results)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "phabricator_build_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`after`	No	Cursor for next-page pagination
`limit`	No	Maximum results (max 100)
`order`	No	Result order
`before`	No	Cursor for previous-page pagination
`queryKey`	No	Built-in query: "all", "initiated", "waiting", "active", "completed"
`attachments`	No	Data attachments
`constraints`	No	Search constraints

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.19May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination behavior, result ordering, whether attachments change the response shape, or how constraints combine. For a search tool with nested constraint objects, this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With seven parameters, nested constraint and attachment objects, and no output schema, the description should explain what comes back and how the constraint fields behave. It does none of that, relying entirely on the schema and a single readOnly annotation.

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%, including useful hints like the built-in queryKey values and the cross-reference to phabricator_build_plan_search for plan PHIDs. The description itself contributes no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Harbormaster builds') and disambiguates Harbormaster as CI/build results. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling search tools such as phabricator_build_target_search, phabricator_build_log_search, or phabricator_buildable_search, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this one.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many build-adjacent siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The parenthetical '(CI/build results)' only implies the domain rather than giving routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server