UI Verify

List recent UI Verify builds

list_builds

Read-only

Recent UI Verify builds for your project, newest first. Each row is a one-line verdict (gateStatus: passed | changed | failed) for a commit/PR — use it to find the build to inspect. No image URLs or per-story detail here: call get_build for the changed-story list, get_diff for images.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max builds to return (default 20).
`branch`	No	Only builds on this git branch.
`status`	No	Only builds with this raw status.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`builds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "builds": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "autoAcceptChanges": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "branch": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "buildId": {
+            "format": "uuid",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "commitSha": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "createdAt": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "gateStatus": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "prNumber": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "buildId",
+          "commitSha",
+          "branch",
+          "prNumber",
+          "status",
+          "gateStatus",
+          "autoAcceptChanges",
+          "createdAt"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "builds"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses ordering, the gateStatus values, that each row is a one-line summary, and what is intentionally not included. It does not cover every edge case like pagination or empty results, but it addresses the key behavioral expectations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering. Every sentence adds value: purpose, row shape, use case, and exclusion with alternative routing. There is no redundant wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the rows look like, what they do not contain, and where to go for more detail. It omits minor procedural details like response metadata or pagination semantics, but an agent can correctly select and call this tool from the provided information.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for limit, branch, and status, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds a little context by mentioning gateStatus and commit/PR focus, but parameter meaning is largely covered by the schema itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: list recent UI Verify builds, newest first. It also defines the row shape as a one-line verdict per commit/PR, and explicitly distinguishes itself from deeper-detail tools by saying 'No image URLs or per-story detail here'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says the tool is for finding the build to inspect, and gives direct routing guidance: call get_build for the changed-story list and get_diff for images. This clearly tells an agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All UI Verify tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct concern: list vs get vs pagination, build triage vs PR changeset, diff URL vs inline pixels, single-review vs bulk-accept. The descriptions explicitly call out the differences between similar-sounding tools, so an agent can reliably choose the right one.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: get_* for single entities, list_* for collections, and review_diff/accept_build for actions. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools fit the visual regression review workflow well: discovery, triage, pagination, image inspection, and reviewing. Each tool fills a distinct role without redundancy, and the count is in the sweet spot for an agent to keep all tool purposes in context.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full review lifecycle: find builds, triage changed/failed/unchanged stories, paginate, inspect diffs as URLs or inline images, review per-diff, and bulk-accept an entire build. The PR-changeset tools also cover cross-PR questions and deletion cases that would otherwise be dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?