Execute build commands in an isolated environment with timeout enforcement and return exit codes, output, and parsed compiler diagnostics.
Execute build command in isolated environment and return exit code, output, and parsed diagnostics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Working directory path. | |
| command | Yes | Build command string (e.g. 'cargo build', 'pytest'). | |
| timeout_sec | No | Maximum execution time in seconds (default: 30.0). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does contribute real behavioral context — execution occurs in an 'isolated environment' and returns exit code, output, and parsed diagnostics — but says nothing about sandbox side effects, timeout behavior, or failure modes when the command exceeds the limit.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the execution semantics and return values are packed efficiently without waste.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (exit code, output, diagnostics) and the isolation property. It falls just short on timeout semantics and interaction with the toolchain-detection siblings.
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 command, cwd, and timeout_sec are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.
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?
Specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('build command') with the added scope of an isolated environment, plus a statement of what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling parse_compiler_errors, which handles the parsing of diagnostics this tool also mentions.
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 indication of when to prefer this over detect_toolchains, parse_compiler_errors, or get_toolchain_status, nor any prerequisites (e.g. toolchain must be detected first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.