Skip to main content
Glama
kensaurus

Mushi-Mushi

by kensaurus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Fix timeline

get_fix_timeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace a fix attempt's lifecycle from dispatch to completion, showing each stage with timestamps and PR URL, to debug why a fix failed.

Instructions

Return the ordered lifecycle of one fix attempt: dispatched, started, branch, commit, PR opened, CI, completed/failed, with timestamps and the PR URL. Returns { events: [{ ts, stage, detail }] }. Read-only. Use to debug "why did this fix fail?" after dispatch_fix; use refresh_ci to re-poll GitHub CI, or get_report_timeline for the whole report thread.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fixIdYesfix_attempt UUID (or the dispatch id dispatch_fix returned) (`fix_id` is accepted too.)
projectIdNoProject UUID — required for org-scoped keys with multiple projects. (`project_id` is accepted too.)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.12
    • changedInput schema / properties / fixId / description
      Previous value: -"fix_attempt UUID"New value: +"fix_attempt UUID (or the dispatch id dispatch_fix returned) (`fix_id` is accepted too.)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Project UUID — required for org-scoped keys with multiple projects. (`project_id` is accepted too.)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Project UUID — required for org-scoped keys with multiple projects.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.10
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description redundantly says 'Read-only.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by describing the ordered stage lifecycle and the returned event structure. It does not contradict the annotations, and the safety profile is adequately covered.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently provides output shape plus usage guidance. The only minor waste is the standalone 'Read-only.' sentence, which merely repeats the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 read-only single-fix-attempt tool with only two parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: the exact operation, the output shape, when to call it, and which sibling tools to use instead. No output schema exists, but the description provides the return shape directly, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the input schema already documents fixId and projectId, including accepted aliases. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('one fix attempt'), and the exact scope ('ordered lifecycle... dispatched, started, branch, commit, PR opened, CI, completed/failed'). It also distinguishes itself from get_report_timeline by explicitly limiting scope to a single fix attempt rather than the whole report thread.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

There is explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use to debug "why did this fix fail?" after dispatch_fix') and named alternatives with their purposes ('use refresh_ci to re-poll GitHub CI, or get_report_timeline for the whole report thread'). This fully routes an agent to the correct tool.

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