buildPackageRuns the complete project packaging flow: retrieves project info and SVN version, then builds a standard-format package with the version included.
完整打包工程，包含获取项目信息、获取SVN版本号、执行打包等全部步骤。支持本地工程的打包，打包结果为带有SVN版本的标准格式。
使用场景：
需要一次性完成整个打包流程
简单的打包任务
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectRoot | Yes | 本地工程的根路径 | |
| saveProjectName | No | 保存项目名称的路径，如果没有当前工程，则使用项目根目录的名称 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the major steps and the output format, but does not mention potential side effects such as files written to disk, interaction with SVN servers, required permissions, or whether the operation modifies the working copy.
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?
The description is compact and well structured: the first sentence defines scope and output, and the use-case list adds practical invocation context. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.
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?
The description covers the overall workflow, local support, and output format, which is adequate for a high-level understanding. However, it omits output location, artifact naming conventions, prerequisites like a valid SVN working copy, and how it relates to the separate backend/frontend build tools.
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?
The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only general context about local packaging and does not clarify saveProjectName beyond what the schema already states.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an end-to-end packaging operation: it gathers project info, obtains the SVN revision, and executes the packaging, with a standard-format output. It is distinguishable from siblings through its emphasis on the complete single-flow packaging, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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?
The description provides explicit use scenarios: when the user wants the entire packaging flow done at once and for simple packaging tasks. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as buildBackend/buildFrontend, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.