Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Testsy

by dev.testsy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add an endpoint

add_endpoint

Add a call the tester may make into your system. It sees only the name, the description and what the call returned. Using endpoints in a run needs a paid plan. bodyTemplate may contain {{param}} placeholders the tester fills in. Headers (for example Authorization) are encrypted and never returned.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "add_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYeshttps://… address
nameYesShort name (up to 40 characters), for example create_voucher
methodNoHTTP method (default POST)
headersNoRequest headers, up to 20 (write-only)
projectIdYesProject id (p_…)
descriptionYesWhat it does and when to use it (up to 600 characters)
bodyTemplateNoRequest body with {{param}} placeholders, optional

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write), the description discloses what the tester can see ('only the name, the description and what the call returned') and that headers are encrypted and never returned. That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get from the structured fields. It stops short of covering duplicate-name handling, limits, or what the tool returns.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the plan requirement, the placeholder mechanism, and the header secrecy rule. Every sentence carries information; only the slightly awkward phrasing of the opening clause costs it a point.

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?

For a 7-parameter write tool with a nested headers object and no output schema, the description covers the risky and non-obvious parts (plan gating, placeholder syntax, header encryption) well. It does not say what the tool returns (e.g. an endpoint id needed for later runs) or how duplicates are handled, which matters given the absence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: bodyTemplate placeholders use {{param}} syntax filled in by the tester, and headers (e.g. Authorization) are encrypted and never returned. Those two facts explain the semantics of parameters the schema only names.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource: 'Add a call the tester may make into your system', which tells an agent this registers a new endpoint definition. It is clearly distinct from delete_endpoint/list_endpoints by implication, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It supplies one real prerequisite ('Using endpoints in a run needs a paid plan'), which is useful gating context. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over adjacent tools such as add_credential for secrets, nor any when-not-to-use condition.

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

All Testsy toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources