Skip to main content
Glama

Kilotest

by com.kilotest
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

requestFeature

Process my request to add or improve a feature. 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
featureYes20- to 1000-character description of requested feature improvement or new feature

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
    • changedInput schema / properties / feature / description
      Previous value: -"description of requested feature improvement or new feature"New value: +"20- to 1000-character description of requested feature improvement or new feature"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / this request / properties / body / properties / feature / description
      Previous value: -"description of requested feature improvement or new feature"New value: +"20- to 1000-character description of requested feature improvement or new feature"
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, closed-world write-like action. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say what 'process' actually does (creates a ticket? notifies a team? rate limits?), and the report/issue/violator hierarchy sentence describes the product's data model, not this tool's behavior.

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?

The first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second sentence about front-end quality testing and the report/issue/violator/diagnosis hierarchy is tangential to submitting a feature request and consumes half the description without helping the agent invoke this specific tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the single parameter is fully specified. However, for a non-read-only action tool the description omits what processing entails (confirmation, tracking, follow-up), leaving a modest but real gap.

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 a single 'feature' parameter fully documented (20-1000 characters), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, which matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 first sentence gives a clear verb+resource ('process my request to add or improve a feature'), which is distinguishable from siblings like requestNewTest, requestRetest, and orderNewTest. The second sentence is domain context about Kilotest rather than the tool itself, so it neither adds nor detracts much from purpose clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as requestNewTest or requestRetest, despite a crowded sibling set of request/order tools. The intent (feature requests) is only implied by the verb 'add or improve a feature'; no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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