Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-ci-triage

mcp-ci-triage

by projectsofadi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

failing_jobs

Show unsuccessful GitHub Actions jobs and steps (failures, timeouts, cancellations) for a repo or run to diagnose CI failures.

Instructions

Show unsuccessful jobs/steps, including failures, timeouts, and cancellations.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "failing_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
run_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the result content (failures, timeouts, cancellations), which is useful, but says nothing about scope, whether run_id=0 spans all runs, pagination, or rate limits. The safety profile must be inferred from 'Show'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations. The meaning of run_id and the scope of the query are simply absent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about 'repo' or 'run_id'. It does not explain that run_id defaults to 0 or what that default means (e.g., all runs), leaving both parameters semantically opaque in schema and prose alike.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('unsuccessful jobs/steps') and enumerates the categories it covers (failures, timeouts, cancellations). It is clear what the tool returns, but it names no sibling and does not distinguish itself from mixed_outcome_workflows or recent_runs.

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?

The description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like recent_runs or mixed_outcome_workflows. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope (all runs vs a specific run_id), or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools