keil-mdk-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

keil_build

Runs an incremental Keil MDK UV4 build for a target or project, returning exit status, summary, and output evidence for diagnosing compile and link results.

Instructions

UV4 -b incremental build. Requires exit code, summary and expected nonempty output evidence.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "keil_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`project_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the build modifies project artifacts, what happens on failure, whether the tool waits for completion, or what permissions/setup are required. The phrase about exit code and output evidence is too vague to count as useful behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded and compact. However, the second sentence is ambiguous and does not clearly earn its place, reading more like an internal note than actionable guidance for an agent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a build tool with two undocumented optional parameters and a sibling rebuild tool, the description omits essential context about parameter usage, prerequisites, and when incremental versus full build is appropriate.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the two parameters target or project_path. It adds no meaning about defaults, path format, or what happens when either is omitted, leaving both parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation: "UV4 -b incremental build." It identifies the underlying command and the build mode, which lets an agent distinguish this from a full rebuild via the sibling keil_rebuild. The second sentence is less clear, but the core purpose is still identifiable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus keil_rebuild or when to check keil_get_build_log. The word "incremental" hints at the distinction but does not name the alternative or state prerequisites such as an existing project or target selection.

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