CNB Remote MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get commit check statuses

repo_commit_statuses

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve CI check statuses and pipeline results for a specific repository commit to verify build or test outcomes before merging or releasing.

Instructions

Get CI check statuses (pipeline results) attached to a commit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "commitish": "<commitish>"
    },
    "name": "repo_commit_statuses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository path, e.g. "owner/repo" or "group/subgroup/repo"
`commitish`	Yes	Commit SHA or ref

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the returned statuses are CI/pipeline results tied to a commit. It says nothing about pagination, whether all checks or only a latest-per-context set are returned, or whether the commit must exist on the default branch.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity means no structural hooks (such as a 'use when' clause) to orient the agent beyond the scope phrase.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched but not what comes back: no hint of check names, states (success/failure/pending), or counts. An agent can invoke it correctly, but cannot anticipate the response shape or decide between it and pr_checks with confidence.

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 description coverage is 100%: 'repo' documents owner/repo and group/subgroup/repo forms, and 'commitish' documents SHA or ref. The description adds no further meaning about how a ref resolves or what happens if the ref is ambiguous. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics entirely.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Get CI check statuses (pipeline results) attached to a commit.' The parenthetical 'pipeline results' disambiguates CI checks from generic build data, and 'attached to a commit' scopes it apart from PR-level checks. It stops short of naming the nearest siblings (pr_checks, build_status) explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent facing the overlapping siblings pr_checks, build_status, and repo_commit_get must decide on its own whether commit-level check statuses or PR-level checks are wanted. The description only implies usage through its scope phrase.

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