Retrieve CI/CD job details including duration, runner, failure reason, and artifacts list by project ID and job ID.
Get comprehensive details about a CI/CD job (duration, runner, failure reason, artifacts list)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Numeric ID of the build or test job | |
| project_id | Yes | Project numeric ID (e.g. 31) or namespace path (e.g. 'group/project-name'). URL-encoding is handled automatically. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but never states read-only/side-effect-free behavior, permission or auth requirements, or whether the job must be in a terminal state before details are meaningful. Listing returned fields adds some value but is not behavioral disclosure.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical inventory of returned data is efficient and 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 simple two-parameter read tool the scope is adequately covered, and the field inventory partly compensates for the absent output schema. But with no annotations to convey safety or side-effect profile, the definition leaves behavioral context thinner than ideal.
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%: job_id and project_id are both fully documented in the schema, including the namespace-path alternative and automatic URL encoding. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get comprehensive details about a CI/CD job') and enumerates the returned fields (duration, runner, failure reason, artifacts list), which is concrete enough to distinguish the tool's scope. However, it never names or contrasts with adjacent siblings like get_job_trace, get_job_artifact_file, or list_pipeline_jobs, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. With several sibling tools operating on jobs (traces, artifact files, pipeline job lists, test reports), the description gives no routing signal for choosing this one over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.