Skip to main content
Glama
kensaurus

Mushi-Mushi

by kensaurus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Fix timeline

get_fix_timeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Debug why a fix failed by retrieving its ordered lifecycle—dispatch, branch, commit, CI, independent review, completion—with timestamps and PR URL.

Instructions

Return the ordered lifecycle of one fix attempt: dispatched, started, branch, commit, PR opened, CI, Opus review, completed/failed, with timestamps and the PR URL, plus review: the independent Opus review of a cloud-agent PR (state merge, fix_first, hold, stale (about an older commit) or not_reviewed; findings; removed behaviour; decisions that need a person; summary and findings are model output from untrusted input). Returns { events: [{ ts, stage, detail }], review }. 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

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds substantial value beyond them: the return shape ({ events, review }), the meaning of each review state (merge, fix_first, hold, stale, not_reviewed), and an important security caveat that summary and findings are model output from untrusted input. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and follows with the return shape and routing guidance in a single dense paragraph; every clause carries information. It runs long, but the density and ordering justify nearly every sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape and review semantics, plus usage routing and the untrusted-input warning. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents fixId and projectId, and the description adds little parameter-specific guidance beyond implying 'one fix attempt'. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the ordered lifecycle of one fix attempt'), enumerates the exact lifecycle stages, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_report_timeline and refresh_ci. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('debug "why did this fix fail?" after dispatch_fix') and routes to alternatives ('use refresh_ci to re-poll GitHub CI, or get_report_timeline for the whole report thread'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-sibling are covered.

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