start_ci_buildStarts an Xcode Cloud build of a workflow, optionally on a specific branch or tag.
Starts an Xcode Cloud build of a workflow, optionally on a specific branch or tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clean | No | Run a clean build without cached derived data. | |
| workflowId | Yes | Workflow ID (from list_ci_workflows). | |
| gitReference | No | Branch or tag to build, e.g. main or v2.1.0. Omit to use the workflow's own start condition. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description confirms the build-starting action and optional branch/tag targeting, but does not add operational details such as asynchronous behavior, permissions, or what a successful start returns.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It immediately identifies the action and the optional scoping detail.
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?
With only three parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It is slightly thin on what happens after the build is started, but no output schema or complex branching needs explanation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meaning is already well documented. The description reinforces workflow and branch/tag usage but does not add meaning beyond the schema, and it does not mention the clean parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: starting an Xcode Cloud build of a workflow, with optional branch or tag scope. It is clear enough to distinguish from list/get CI tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied by “Starts an Xcode Cloud build,” and the optional branch/tag behavior is noted, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings such as list_ci_workflows or get_ci_build_run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.