Bamboo MCP Server

by mvadly

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_build_log

Retrieve build logs for a specific build result, with optional job key to focus on a particular job.

Instructions

Get build logs for a specific build result.

Args: build_key: The build result key (e.g., 'PROJ-PLAN-123') job_key: Optional specific job key within the build

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "build_key": "<build_key>"
    },
    "name": "get_build_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_key`	No
`build_key`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'gets build logs' but omits behavioral traits like side effects (none expected), permissions needed, or any limits on log size. The return format is not mentioned, though an output schema exists.

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?

The description is concise: one sentence for purpose and a clear list of arguments. No extra words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted parameters) but is effective.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context about log format, pagination, or how job_key affects output. Adequate for basic use but incomplete for complex scenarios.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: explains build_key with an example and clarifies that job_key is optional and its purpose. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Get build logs for a specific build result' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('build logs'). It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_build_result or list_build_results, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_build_result or list_build_results. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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