Trigger a CI pipeline run on a GitVerse repository for a selected workflow and branch or tag, automating builds and tests.
Trigger a CI run of a workflow on a branch or tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner | |
| inputs | No | Workflow inputs (string values) | |
| ref_name | Yes | Branch or tag name | |
| ref_type | Yes | What ref_name refers to | |
| workflow | Yes | Workflow file name or id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the branch/tag scoping but does not clarify side effects, return behavior, or asynchronous nature. It provides only minimal context beyond the annotations, earning a middle score.
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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes to the core purpose with no filler or redundancy.
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 description is too thin for a side-effectful action with 5 required parameters and no output schema. It does not mention expected return value, error conditions, or whether the trigger is synchronous, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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%, with all parameters including inputs, ref_name, and ref_type having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Trigger' and identifies the resource 'CI run of a workflow' plus the scope 'on a branch or tag'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listPipelineRuns or getPipelineRun, which are read operations.
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 alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with other pipeline-related tools. An agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.