Kilotest

questionDiagnosis

Questions or contests a diagnosis shown by the listDiagnoses tool; queued for review by management. Use this after listDiagnoses when you believe a rule violation was incorrectly diagnosed or classified into an issue, providing the issueID, reportID, catalogIndex, engineID, and ruleID shown in the diagnosis and your reason. No authorization is required; a nonexistent report, element, or diagnosis produces an error. Returns a confirmation with disposition details.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issueID": "<issueID>",
      "reportID": "<reportID>",
      "catalogIndex": "<catalogIndex>",
      "engineID": "<engineID>",
      "ruleID": "<ruleID>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "questionDiagnosis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	Yes	20- to 1000-character explanation of why the diagnosis is disputed, evaluated by the reviewing manager
`ruleID`	Yes	Identifier of the rule whose diagnosis is disputed, as shown in the listDiagnoses output (example: color-contrast); if that output shows null for the rule identifier, use its description of the violation instead
`issueID`	Yes	Issue identifier (example: contrastPoor), as in the listDiagnoses output that showed the disputed diagnosis
`engineID`	Yes	Identifier of the rule engine that produced the disputed diagnosis (example: axe), as shown in the listDiagnoses output
`reportID`	Yes	Identifier of the report (example: 260503T0432-x9z), as in the listDiagnoses output that showed the disputed diagnosis
`catalogIndex`	Yes	Identifier of the issue-exhibiting element in the catalog of elements on the page (example: 372), as in the listDiagnoses output that showed the disputed diagnosis

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool name`	Yes
`this request`	Yes
`tool collection`	Yes
`response content`	Yes
`response metadata`	Yes
`URLs of similar requests for web users`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds behavior well beyond the annotations: the request is 'queued for review by management' (an asynchronous human-review side effect, not an immediate fix), no authorization is required, and nonexistent report/element/diagnosis inputs produce errors. It also discloses the return shape (confirmation with disposition details). This is materially more than the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then invocation conditions, then side effects and error/return behavior. Efficient overall, though enumerating all six parameter names duplicates what the schema already labels and slightly inflates the middle sentence.

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?

The tool is a non-idempotent mutation submitting a review request; the description covers the trigger, the required input provenance, permission requirements, failure modes, and the nature of the response. With an output schema and full annotation set already present, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the convention of copying values from listDiagnoses output and the null-ruleID fallback. The description restates the parameter list and the 'as shown in the diagnosis' provenance without adding format, constraint, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Questions or contests a diagnosis' — and names the sibling tool that produces the input (listDiagnoses), so an agent can distinguish it from listDiagnoses, listIssues, and requestRetest without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this after listDiagnoses when you believe a rule violation was incorrectly diagnosed or classified into an issue.' That is clear context for invocation. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., for requesting a retest, which is what requestRetest appears to cover), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Kilotest tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?