Skip to main content
Glama

check_ci_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch recent GitHub Actions workflow runs to review CI/CD statuses, conclusions, branches, and timestamps. Use it to spot failed or pending builds.

Instructions

Fetches recent CI/CD workflow runs (GitHub Actions) for a GitHub repository.

  • Side effects: None. This is a strictly read-only operation.

  • Data sources: GitHub REST API (actions/runs).

  • Auth requirements: No authentication required for public repositories. Uses configured token if available.

  • Rate limits: Subject to standard GitHub API limits.

  • Return shape: Returns a JSON array of workflow runs including name, status, conclusion, head_branch, created_at, updated_at, and html_url.

  • Usage guidelines: Use this tool ONLY to check raw GitHub Actions workflow history and CI build statuses. DO NOT use this tool for other analyses:

    • For a computed A-F health score grading, use 'get_health_score' instead.

    • For retrieving basic repository stats (stars, forks), use 'get_repo_health' instead.

    • For calculated DORA metrics, use 'get_dora_metrics' instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesGitHub repository name (e.g., 'sdk')
limitNoNumber of runs to return
ownerYesGitHub repository owner (e.g., 'modelcontextprotocol')

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / owner / description
      Previous value: -"GitHub repository owner"New value: +"GitHub repository owner (e.g., 'modelcontextprotocol')"
    • changedInput schema / properties / repo / description
      Previous value: -"GitHub repository name"New value: +"GitHub repository name (e.g., 'sdk')"
  2. First observedv1.1.3

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses side effects, data sources, auth requirements, rate limits, and return shape. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by concise bullet points for side effects, data sources, auth, rate limits, return shape, and usage guidelines. Each section adds distinct value, and the exclusion list is efficient rather than redundant.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return shape precisely. It also covers auth, rate limits, side effects, and alternatives, making the description fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the three parameters. The description adds context about the returned fields but does not add much meaning about the parameters themselves, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches recent CI/CD workflow runs (GitHub Actions) for a GitHub repository.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly naming what it is for and what it is not for, such as get_health_score and get_dora_metrics.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this tool ONLY to check raw GitHub Actions workflow history and CI build statuses.' It then lists specific alternative tools for other analyses, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool versus siblings.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexbypa/github-projectpulse-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server