Assign a completed publish build as the project's primary build by passing its durable build job ID, ensuring the intended version is served to users.
Set a completed publish build as the project primary build. buildId is the durable build JOB id from list_builds/create_build, not the app id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buildId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation. The description goes beyond that by disclosing a precondition (the build must be a completed publish build) and by disambiguating the id type, which the annotations do not cover. It stops short of saying what happens to the previously primary build or whether the call fails on a non-completed build.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the parameter caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a single required integer parameter with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the id provenance. It is nearly complete; only side effects on the prior primary build and failure behavior for non-completed builds are left implicit.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it identifies buildId as the durable build JOB id sourced from list_builds/create_build and explicitly warns it is not the app id. That is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs to avoid passing the wrong identifier.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Set ... as the project primary build') plus a scope qualifier ('completed publish build'), so the agent knows exactly what state change occurs. It also names the sibling tools that produce the required id (list_builds/create_build), which helps place it in the build tool family.
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 only implied: the agent learns that buildId must come from list_builds/create_build, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus other build tools (get_build, download_build, delete_build) or what happens if the build isn't completed. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.