Skip to main content
Glama
j-rdel

pipeline_watch

by j-rdel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_workflow_run

Retrieve a specific GitHub Actions workflow run by repository and run ID, returning key details like status, conclusion, branch, commit, event, and start time for diagnosing CI/CD failures.

Instructions

Fetch a single GitHub Actions workflow run.

Args:
    repo: "owner/name", e.g. "j-rdel/pipeline_watch". Ignored in fixture mode.
    run_id: run identifier. In fixture mode, must match a file in
            fixtures/workflow_runs/{run_id}.json.

Returns:
    Subset of the GitHub workflow_run payload (id, name, head_branch,
    head_sha, event, status, conclusion, run_started_at, repository,
    jobs_url).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
run_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses special fixture mode behavior for both repo ('Ignored in fixture mode') and run_id ('must match a file'), and explicitly lists the returned payload subset, adding context beyond a simple fetch statement.

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?

The description is organized into a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns sections. The content is information-dense with no filler; each segment earns its place, and fixture details are clearly scoped.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple two-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies both parameters' semantics, edge behavior in fixture mode, and the exact return payload fields. Nothing critical for invoking the tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: repo gets a required format ('owner/name') with an example and fixture-mode note, and run_id is explained as a run identifier with fixture-file mapping. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Fetch a single GitHub Actions workflow run.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling get_job_logs, which targets job logs, by focusing on the workflow run resource itself.

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 usage for fetching a single workflow run and provides a run_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_job_logs or any other alternative. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools