Skip to main content
Glama

Kilotest

by com.kilotest
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

requestRetest

Process my request to retest a page about which a report is available. 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 latest report about the page (example: x9z)
reasonYes20- to 100-character reason why the page should be retested
timeStampYesTimestamp of the latest report about the page in YYMMDDTHHmm format (example: 260503T0432)

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
    • addedOutput schema / properties / response content / properties / disposition of your request
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "how a web user can check for completion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "how you can check for completion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "what happens next": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "what happens next",
+        "how you can check for completion",
+        "how a web user can check for completion"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / response content / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "details about your request"
-]New value: +[
+  "details about your request",
+  "disposition of your request"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a non-destructive write action. It usefully adds the precondition (an existing report) and the result hierarchy (report > issue > violator > diagnosis), but says nothing about what side effects occur, whether a new job is queued, or whether the request is charged/queued.

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?

The action is front-loaded in one sentence with the domain context following. It is only two sentences with no padding, though the second sentence largely restates the title and is background rather than operational guidance.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the required-report precondition is covered. The key omission is routing: with both requestRetest and orderRetest in the sibling set, the description leaves the agent unable to decide which one to call.

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 jobID, reason and timeStamp are fully documented in the schema (including formats and examples). The description only indirectly gestures at the report's jobID/timeStamp via 'a page about which a report is available', adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource ('retest a page') and even states the precondition that a report must already exist. However it does nothing to separate itself from the sibling orderRetest (or requestNewTest), which an agent must choose between; the second sentence is domain background rather than purpose.

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?

'a page about which a report is available' implies when the tool is applicable, so usage is hinted at. But no alternative is named despite the near-identical sibling orderRetest, and there is no guidance on when to retest versus order a new test or request a feature.

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