Parse build logs to extract structured errors, warnings, and progress updates, providing clear insight into build status.
Parse the last build output and return structured errors, warnings, and progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build_log | Yes | Raw build log output to parse for errors and warnings |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not clarify whether this is a safe read operation, whether side effects occur, or what happens on malformed input. The phrase 'the last build output' is ambiguous — unclear if the tool maintains state or if 'last' refers to the provided log. The description presents the function as a pure parser, but this is implied rather than explicit.
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 tightly written clauses pack in the verb, resource, and output type without waste. Every word earns its place; it is efficiently front-loaded and instantly scannable.
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?
Given an extremely simple single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate but relies heavily on the agent assuming this is a pure function. It never explains the error format for unparseable input, or whether the original raw log is returned alongside structured errors. For a tool with this complexity, the description is acceptable but leaves edge-case behavior to the agent's imagination.
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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by telling the agent that the `build_log` parameter is the raw input to be parsed for structured output, effectively linking the parameter to its purpose. While not drastically exceeding schema, it does reinforce the parsing semantics and the return shape, justifying a 4.
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 clearly states the verb 'Parse' with the resource 'the last build output' and what it returns: 'structured errors, warnings, and progress.' This distinguishes it from siblings. However, the tool name suggests 'get' (fetch status) while the description emphasizes parsing raw log input, creating a mild name/description mismatch that costs a point.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of siblings like `get_test_results` or `build_target`, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that a build must have been run first). Clear context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.