Retrieve details of a specific CI run by providing repository owner, name, and run ID. Check pipeline status, logs, or metadata to debug and monitor builds.
Get details of a CI run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner | |
| run_id | Yes | CI run id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates the read-only nature without adding behavioral context. The description does not disclose anything beyond the annotations, such as whether output is paginated, what fields are included, or if authorization is needed.
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, focused sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded, though it may be too sparse to convey full context. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
The tool is simple, with three required parameters fully described in the schema and annotations covering its safe, read-only behavior. However, the description does not clarify what 'details' are included in the response, and there is no output schema to compensate. This leaves minor ambiguity but is adequate for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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 100%, so the parameters are already documented by the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond identifying the resource as a CI run, which the parameter names already imply. This meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a CI run'), which accurately distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like listPipelineRuns or getPipelineSteps. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools or specify which details are returned, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listPipelineRuns or getPipelineSteps. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context solely from the tool name and parameter schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.