blacksmith-mcp

get_jobs_by_dimension

Break down CI job metrics by repository, workflow, branch, or runner type to identify top resource consumers by duration, job count, or failures.

Instructions

Break down job metrics by dimension: repository, workflow, branch, or runner_type. Shows which repos/workflows consume the most CI time. Example: get_jobs_by_dimension(dimension="repository", metric="duration")

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": "get_jobs_by_dimension"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top_n`	No	Number of top results to return. Defaults to 20.
`metric`	No	Metric to measure. Defaults to jobs.
`end_date`	No	End date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today.
`dimension`	No	Dimension to break down by. Defaults to repository.
`start_date`	No	Start date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to 7 days ago.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool shows top-consuming repos/workflows, suggesting an aggregate/ranking, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior. The description is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus a code example, front-loaded with action verb. Every word earns its place; no extraneous information. Perfectly concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema is provided, and the description does not detail the return format (e.g., structure of results, ordering). For 5 optional parameters, more context on what the output looks like would improve completeness. The example hints at usage but not results.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds an example showing dimension='repository' and metric='duration', but does not elaborate on defaults or interaction beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool breaks down job metrics by dimension (repository, workflow, branch, runner_type) and shows which repos/workflows consume the most CI time. It includes a concrete example, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like get_jobs_summary or get_jobs_daily.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (for dimension breakdowns) but does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided.

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