Fetch a build's parameters, marks, moving parts, rails, attachments, parts table, checks, and files by build folder name.
A build's facts: parameters, marks, moving parts, rails, attachments, the parts table, every check, files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | Yes | a build folder name from list_builds |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The 'read_' prefix suggests a safe read, but the description says nothing about whether it is read-only, how large the payload is ('every check, files' implies a heavy aggregate read), pagination, or error behavior for an unknown build name.
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?
It is compact with no wasted words, but it is a bare noun list with no verb or framing, which makes it harder to parse than a single well-formed sentence would be. Brevity here stems partly from under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does useful work by naming the returned sections, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It still omits any sense of response shape, size, or how the aggregate read relates to the granular sibling list tools.
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% and there is a single, clearly documented parameter ('a build folder name from list_builds'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names the resource ('a build's facts') and enumerates the kinds of data returned, so the agent can infer this is a read of a single build. However, there is no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings that also surface parts of this data (list_builds, describe_params, list_attachments, list_references), so selection between them is guesswork.
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 on when to use this rather than list_builds, describe_params, or list_attachments, even though they overlap heavily with the enumerated contents. The only hint of context is in the schema ('a build folder name from list_builds'), which is sequencing, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.