Identify the next action for a pipeline by name, such as debian-kernel, and return the single step to run. Helps decide what to do next in deterministic workflows.
For a pipeline (e.g. debian-kernel): the one next thing to do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pipeline | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it might have, what the returned 'thing' is, or any auth/permission requirements. The agent is left entirely blind to the tool's behavior.
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 short clause, but it is under-specified rather than optimally concise. It fails to front-load any actionable information beyond a vague statement and one example. The brevity does not earn its place because essential details are missing.
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, no output schema, no sibling differentiation, and only one parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is far from complete. An agent would have to guess the return format, side effects, and when to choose this tool over siblings like build_harness_next. It is inadequate for even a simple query 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 single parameter 'pipeline' has no schema-level description. The description gives one example value ('debian-kernel'), which offers minimal semantic help but does not explain format, constraints, or what constitutes a valid pipeline identifier.
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 'the one next thing to do' largely restates the tool name 'next' and adds only a pipeline scope. It lacks a clear verb (e.g., return, recommend, fetch) and does not differentiate itself from the sibling build_harness_next. The agent cannot confidently tell what the tool actually returns or how it differs from similar tools.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as build_harness_next or readiness. The single example '(e.g. debian-kernel)' is context for the parameter, not usage guidance. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.