Bamboo MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_build_results

Retrieve recent build results for a Bamboo plan by providing the plan key. Optionally set the maximum number of results and include in-progress or queued builds.

Instructions

List recent build results for a plan.

Args: plan_key: The plan key (e.g., 'PROJ-PLAN') max_results: Maximum number of results to return (default: 10) include_all_states: Include in-progress and queued builds

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": {
      "plan_key": "<plan_key>"
    },
    "name": "list_build_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_key`	Yes
`max_results`	No
`include_all_states`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, ordering of results, or what 'recent' means. It only repeats parameter details from the schema.

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 with a clear docstring format listing parameters and defaults. No unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list tool with 3 parameters, but it lacks usage context and behavioral details. The existence of an output schema is noted but not described, which is acceptable per rules.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds full meanings to all three parameters (plan_key, max_results, include_all_states) beyond the bare schema, which had 0% coverage. Each parameter is explained clearly.

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 it lists recent build results for a plan, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_build_result or get_build_log.

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 such as get_build_result for a specific build or get_build_log for logs. The description only states what it does.

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