Skip to main content
Glama

UI Verify

by io.github.igrlk

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax builds to return (default 20).
branchNoOnly builds on this git branch.
statusNoOnly builds with this raw status.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildsYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are newest-first rows containing only a gateStatus verdict, and the tool intentionally omits image URLs and per-story details. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose before limitations and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the schema or title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs: what the rows look like, how results are ordered, what is intentionally excluded, and which sibling tools to use for the excluded details. No critical call-time context is missing.

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 fully documents all three parameters (limit, branch, status) with descriptions and enumerations, so the schema carries the parameter-meaning burden. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb and resource ('List recent UI Verify builds'), specifies ordering ('newest first'), and defines the output scope ('one-line verdict'). It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly stating what it lacks ('no image URLs or per-story detail') and naming the alternatives for those details.

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 gives explicit usage direction: use this to find the build to inspect, then 'call get_build for the changed-story list, get_diff for images.' This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling tools and states the boundary of this tool's usefulness.

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

All UI Verify toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources and actions, and the descriptions carefully separate build triage from PR changesets. However, get_diff and render_diff_image both provide diff imagery (URLs vs inline), and accept_build overlaps with review_diff's accept mode, so one or two selections could be mis-picked without reading closely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All nine tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_* for paginated listings, get_* for detail/triage, render_* for image output, and review_diff/accept_build for review actions. The naming convention is predictable and easy to reason about.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well within the ideal scope for a visual-regression review server. Each tool maps to a distinct workflow step—finding builds, triaging results, paging stories, fetching images, and recording reviews—without redundant or bloated additions.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full UI-verification loop: discover builds, inspect gate verdicts, page through changed/failed/unchanged stories, fetch diff details and inline images, review individually or bulk-accept, and inspect PR-level visual changesets. No essential operation for the stated domain is missing.

Resources