Testsy

Add a test file

add_test_file

Add a file the tester can upload during the test: up to 25 MB, up to 10 files per test. REST: send the raw bytes as the body with the file name in the X-File-Name header (or ?name=), or JSON {name, contentBase64}. MCP: name and contentBase64. A file with the same name replaces the old one.

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": {
      "testId": "<testId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "add_test_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	File name, for example orders-march.csv
`testId`	Yes	Test id (t_…)
`contentType`	No	Media type, for example text/csv (optional)
`contentBase64`	No	The file's bytes, base64-encoded

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real value on top: size and count quotas, overwrite-by-name semantics, and the two transport shapes (REST raw bytes with X-File-Name/?name=, or JSON; MCP name plus contentBase64). It does not cover error behavior or what the call 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and limits, then transport details and the overwrite rule — no filler sentences. The REST header/query-string alternatives are somewhat incidental for an MCP caller but are compactly stated.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the pieces an agent needs: quotas, overwrite behavior, and the exact payload shape for MCP. It stops short of describing failure modes or whether the replaced file keeps its identity, which is a minor 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains name, testId, contentType and contentBase64, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest meaning by clarifying that only name and contentBase64 are used in the MCP path and by explaining the file-name header mapping for REST, but contentType is left untouched.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a file the tester can upload during the test') plus the scope of the artifact (tester uploads within a test). It is clearly distinguishable from delete_test_file or list_test_files by verb, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 clear context for when to call it — attaching an uploadable artifact to a test — and encodes the practical limits (25 MB, 10 files per test) that determine whether the call is appropriate. The replacement rule hints at add-vs-update behavior, but no explicit 'use X instead' guidance is given.

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

All Testsy tools Inspect

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.