ci_run_showRetrieve one CI run from a Lizard Git repository with its jobs and steps. Set logs to include each job's recent log tail and inspect failures.
Read one CI run of a Lizard Git repository with its jobs and steps. logs: true adds each job's log (the last 64 KiB of each, where failures usually are).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logs | No | ||
| repo | Yes | Lizard Git repository as "owner/name" (repo_list) | |
| number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so behavior beyond that is largely covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing that logs are truncated to 64 KiB per job and where in the log failures tend to appear – a non-obvious cost/quality trait.
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?
Two dense sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the optional-parameter caveat immediately after. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.
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?
For a simple 3-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Without an output schema, it never sketches the returned run/job/step structure, which is the only remaining ambiguity.
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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate and it does for `logs` – explaining exactly what true adds and its truncation limit, which the schema does not. `repo` is documented in the schema (owner/name, pointing at repo_list); `number` is left implicit but is self-evident as a CI run identifier bounded to >=1.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (read one CI run of a Lizard Git repository) plus the payload scope (its jobs and steps). That implicitly separates it from the sibling ci_run_list, which returns many runs.
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?
Clearly establishes the context (fetch a single run, presumably when you already have a run number) and gives a concrete usage rule for the logs flag: set true to pull job logs, which are truncated to the last 64 KiB where failures usually are. It does not name ci_run_list as the way to discover run numbers, so no explicit alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.