Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Testsy

by dev.testsy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Import a build from a link

import_build

Fetch a build from an https link (an EAS, Bitrise, S3 or GitHub artifact link, up to the build size limit) into the project; it is checked and ready to run. Nothing to upload from your side. The link must be https to a public host name; up to 3 redirects are followed. headers (optional, at most 5: Authorization or X-… names) are sent to the first host only, for a private artifact store. The file name comes from Content-Disposition or the link; it must be an .apk or a zipped .app. Run the result with run_test {buildId} or run_project {buildIds}. Call find_build first when the file may already be there.

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>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "import_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYeshttps link to the build file
labelNoA label, for example the commit (optional)
headersNoRequest headers for the link, e.g. {"Authorization": "Bearer …"} (optional)
projectIdYesProject id (p_…)
fingerprintNoNative fingerprint to store with the build, for find_build (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: the artifact is validated and immediately runnable, there is a build size limit, at most 3 redirects are followed, headers are capped at 5 and sent only to the first host (a meaningful credential-leak safeguard), and the stored file name/allowed extensions are determined server-side. That is exactly the behavior an agent needs to know before sending a private-store credential.

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?

Purpose and payload are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct constraint (redirects, headers, file name, next tool). The dense semicolon-and-parenthetical packing makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema, yet the description still signals that a buildId comes back by pointing to run_test {buildId}. Combined with source constraints, header restrictions, allowed file types and the find_build pre-check, an agent has everything required to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraints the schema omits: the url must be https on a public host, and headers are limited to five Authorization/X-… names that reach only the first host. label and fingerprint are left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 ('Fetch a build from an https link ... into the project') and enumerates the concrete link sources (EAS, Bitrise, S3, GitHub artifact). 'Nothing to upload from your side' implicitly separates it from the create_build_upload/complete_build_upload pair, so an agent can pick the right entry point 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 an explicit pre-check rule ('Call find_build first when the file may already be there') and names the natural follow-ups (run_test {buildId}, run_project {buildIds}). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the manual upload siblings, so the exclusion side of the guidance is only implied.

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