Mushi-Mushi

Refresh fix CI status

refresh_ci

Idempotent

Re-poll GitHub check-run status for a fix attempt to verify CI is green before merging.

Instructions

Re-poll GitHub for the latest check-run status of a fix attempt's PR and persist it on the fix_attempt row (does not merge or mutate GitHub). Returns { check_run_status, check_run_conclusion, check_run_updated_at }. Write; idempotent. Use right before merge_fix to confirm CI is green; use get_fix_timeline for the full attempt lifecycle.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fixId`	Yes	Fix attempt UUID whose PR check-runs should be re-polled (`fix_id` is accepted too.)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`check_run_status`	Yes	GitHub check run status after refresh
`check_run_conclusion`	Yes	success \| failure \| neutral \| null while pending
`check_run_updated_at`	Yes	ISO timestamp when CI status was last persisted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.12Sep 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / fixId / description

Previous value: -"Fix attempt UUID whose PR check-runs should be re-polled"New value: +"Fix attempt UUID whose PR check-runs should be re-polled (`fix_id` is accepted too.)"

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.1.10Sep 15, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedOutput schema / properties / check_run_conclusion / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / check_run_conclusion / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / check_run_status / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / check_run_status / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / check_run_updated_at / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / check_run_updated_at / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.2Jun 28, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / fixId / description

Previous value: -"Fix attempt UUID"New value: +"Fix attempt UUID whose PR check-runs should be re-polled"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "check_run_conclusion": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "success | failure | neutral | null while pending"
+    },
+    "check_run_status": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "GitHub check run status after refresh"
+    },
+    "check_run_updated_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "ISO timestamp when CI status was last persisted"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "check_run_status",
+    "check_run_conclusion",
+    "check_run_updated_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral value by explaining that the write is a local persistence on the fix_attempt row and explicitly denies any external GitHub mutation, which is important context beyond the annotation booleans.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main behavior, then states side effects, return value, and usage guidance, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 single-parameter, idempotent write operation with rich annotations, an output schema, and explicit sibling routing, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. It communicates the write target, the external side-effect boundary, the return shape, and the recommended usage context.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents fixId, including the accepted alias fix_id. The description reinforces that the parameter refers to the fix attempt whose PR check-runs should be re-polled, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: re-poll GitHub for a fix attempt's PR check-run status and persist it on the fix_attempt row. It also explicitly differentiates itself from related tools by clarifying it does not merge or mutate GitHub, making it easy to distinguish from merge_fix and get_fix_timeline.

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?

The description gives explicit usage context: use it right before merge_fix to confirm CI is green, and use get_fix_timeline when the full attempt lifecycle is needed. It also lists an exclusion, stating it does not merge or mutate GitHub, which prevents misuse.

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