Bamboo MCP Server

by mvadly

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

trigger_build

Trigger a new build for a given plan, with optional branch and variable overrides.

Instructions

Trigger a new build for a plan.

Args: plan_key: The plan key (e.g., 'PROJ-PLAN') branch: Optional branch name to build variables: Optional dict of build variables to override

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": "trigger_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`branch`	No
`plan_key`	Yes
`variables`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention if the operation is asynchronous, requires permissions, or has side effects. Only parameter types are described.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Very concise: one-line purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous text.

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?

For a simple trigger tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain post-trigger behavior (e.g., queuing, return value), but the output schema covers that.

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?

The description provides clear plain-language explanations for all three parameters, including an example for plan_key. Since the JSON schema has 0% description coverage, this adds significant value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool triggers a new build for a plan, using specific verb 'Trigger' and resource 'build for a plan'. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like stop_build and list_build_results.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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