Skip to main content
Glama

Kilotest

by com.kilotest
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

listDiagnoses

Read-onlyIdempotent

Provide details about one element reported as exhibiting one issue in one report, including the diagnoses provided by rule engines about how the element exhibited the issue. Kilotest tests web pages for front-end quality (accessibility, usability, and standards conformity); results are organized as report, then issue, then violator element, then diagnosis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIDYesJob identifier of the report (example: x9z)
issueIDYesIssue identifier (example: contrastPoor)
timeStampYesTimestamp of the report in YYMMDDTHHmm format (example: 260503T0432)
catalogIndexYesIdentifier of the issue-exhibiting element in the catalog of elements on the page (example: 372)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tool nameYes
this requestYes
tool collectionYes
response contentYes
response metadataYes
URLs of similar requests for web usersYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / definitions / RequestReference / properties / method / const
      Removed value: -"GET"
    • addedOutput schema / definitions / RequestReference / properties / method / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "GET",
+  "POST"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / definitions / ReportBasics / properties / days since the report was completed / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / response content / properties / diagnoses of how the element exhibited the issue / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "additionalProperties": false,
-      "properties": {
-        "count of violations of the rule by the element": {
-          "type": "number"
-        },
-        "description of the violation": {
-          "description": "Copied from the report instance (what); type not guaranteed."
-        },
-        "identifier of the violated rule": {
-          "description": "Copied from the report instance (ruleID); type not guaranteed."
-        },
-        "severity of the violation on a 0-to-3 scale": {
-          "description": "Copied from the report instance (ordinalSeverity); type not guaranteed."
-        }
-      },
-      "required": [
-        "identifier of the violated rule",
-        "description of the violation",
-        "severity of the violation on a 0-to-3 scale",
-        "count of violations of the rule by the element"
-      ],
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "error": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "error"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "items": {
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "properties": {
+            "count of violations of the rule by the element": {
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "description of the violation": {
+              "description": "Copied from the report instance (what); type not guaranteed."
+            },
+            "identifier of the violated rule": {
+              "description": "Copied from the report instance (ruleID); type not guaranteed."
+            },
+            "severity of the violation on a 0-to-3 scale": {
+              "description": "Copied from the report instance (ordinalSeverity); type not guaranteed."
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "identifier of the violated rule",
+            "description of the violation",
+            "severity of the violation on a 0-to-3 scale",
+            "count of violations of the rule by the element"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "error": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "error"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope context (single element, single issue, single report) but discloses nothing about pagination, rate limits, or error behavior that annotations don't already signal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the first sentence is wordy ('one element reported as exhibiting one issue in one report') and the second sentence restates the domain model at length. Every sentence is relevant but not tight.

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?

With a 100% covered schema, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description's domain context (Kilotest, the report/issue/violator/diagnosis hierarchy) completes the picture for correct invocation. Return values need not be explained given the output schema.

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% with examples for all four parameters, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description's hierarchy sentence loosely maps parameters to report/issue/element levels but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb+resource: retrieving diagnoses for one element exhibiting one issue in one report. It distinguishes itself within the report>issue>violator>diagnosis hierarchy implied by siblings listReports/listIssues/listViolators. However, the name 'listDiagnoses' suggests a collection while the description emphasizes a single element, a minor mismatch.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the hierarchy sentence ('results are organized as report, then issue, then violator element, then diagnosis') implies the prerequisite chain an agent must navigate. No alternatives are named and no exclusions given.

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

All Kilotest toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Give agents eyes on the webHosted screenshot MCP. Send a URL, get a pixel-perfect image. $0.002 per grab. Works with Claude, Cursor, and Codex.grabbit.liveAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources