Executes the npm build script defined in package.json to compile or bundle the project. Optionally accepts arguments for additional configuration.
Run npm script "build": node scripts/build.cjs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _ | No | ||
| args | No | Optional arguments appended after -- to the script |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueInput schema / properties / _Added value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / argsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "Optional arguments appended after -- to the script"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats the command, omitting details like side effects (e.g., file modifications), failure modes, or idempotency. The minimal information ('node scripts/build.cjs') fails to convey the tool's impact beyond execution.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and underlying command. It has no wasted words and is front-loaded with the key information. Every part earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description should still cover prerequisites, consequences (e.g., builds project), and error handling. It only states the command, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's full role in the build process.
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 50% (only 'args' has a description). The tool description does not explain the '_' parameter (array of strings appended to the script) or elaborate on 'args' usage. It adds no meaning beyond the existing schema description, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 explicitly states the action ('Run npm script') and the target resource ('build'), specifying the exact command 'node scripts/build.cjs'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (prepublishonly, start, test, test_integration) by referencing the specific npm script name.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. The description is purely functional without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.