mcp-ci-triage

mixed_outcome_workflows

Spot inconsistent CI outcomes by finding workflow and branch pairs that have both success and failure results.

Instructions

Find workflow/branch pairs with both success and failure outcomes.

This is a workflow-level triage signal, not proof that a test is flaky.

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": "mixed_outcome_workflows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`lookback`	No
`workflow`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an interpretive trait (a signal, not definitive proof of flakiness), but says nothing about permissions, result volume/cost, or how lookback bounds the search.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, followed by a single high-value caveat. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 3-parameter analytical tool the definition omits any explanation of the parameters, the search window, and when this beats its siblings — enough gaps to be only minimally complete.

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%, so the three parameters (repo, lookback, workflow) are undocumented anywhere. The description's mention of 'workflow/branch pairs' loosely hints at the workflow parameter but never explains repo format, the meaning of lookback (default 50), or the branch concept relative to inputs.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus a precise resource ('workflow/branch pairs with both success and failure outcomes'). The scope is distinct from siblings like failing_jobs and recent_runs, though no sibling is named explicitly to make the contrast airtight.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The caveat that this is a 'workflow-level triage signal, not proof that a test is flaky' tells the agent how to interpret results, which implies a triage context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus recent_runs, failing_jobs, or job_log_tail, so routing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server