Skip to main content
Glama

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create Test Scenario

create-test-scenario

Create a test scenario linked to a user story and allocate a real TS-. Response includes content: canonical stub markdown already containing id: TS- and story: US-. BLOCKING workflow: call this FIRST → Write the returned content to the repo plans/scenarios path (edit body as needed but keep id: and story:) → call update-test-scenario with the full markdown. Never write scenario markdown that omits id. update-test-scenario rejects missing id/story with a clear error. platformFilePath must be under plans/scenarios/ and end with .md. userStoryOrdinalId is the numeric part of the parent US- id. Optional agentTraceability records Activity inline (no separate report-agent-action for this create).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdNoQA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
titleYes
gitShaNo
userIdNo
actorTypeNo
agentModelNo
branchNameNo
cliVersionNo
policyFileNo
workflowIdNo
skillVersionNo
policyVersionNo
projectApiKeyNoQA bots: your own project API key from your stored TestChimp binding. Required on every call except get-bot-credentials, get-project-credentials and get-bot-compat. Never print it.
platformFilePathYes
agentTraceabilityNo
userStoryOrdinalIdYes
workflowExecutionIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / botId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectApiKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "QA bots: your own project API key from your stored TestChimp binding. Required on every call except get-bot-credentials, get-project-credentials and get-bot-compat. Never print it.",
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "minLength": 8,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only give safety hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=false); the description adds substantial context beyond them: what gets returned (canonical stub markdown with id/story), a downstream error contract, path constraints, and that agentTraceability records Activity inline (no separate report-agent-action). This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose followed by a compact arrow-delimited workflow; most sentences earn their place. Slight redundancy between the 'never omit id' warning and the 'rejects missing id/story' error note, but no significant padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fills that gap by describing the returned content and the downstream contract. It covers the create/update lifecycle thoroughly, though it leaves the bulk of the 17 parameters undocumented for an agent to infer.

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?

With only 12% schema coverage, the description compensates for the most important params: platformFilePath format constraints, userStoryOrdinalId meaning (numeric part of US-<n>), and agentTraceability's inline Activity behavior. Many remaining params (gitSha, branchName, cliVersion, etc.) are left unexplained, but they are largely self-descriptive.

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 ('Create a test scenario'), the linking behavior ('linked to a user story'), and a concrete side effect ('allocate a real TS-<ordinalId>'). It clearly separates itself from the sibling update-test-scenario by defining the create-then-write-then-update sequence.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly labels the BLOCKING workflow, gives the ordering ('call this FIRST' → write content → 'call update-test-scenario'), and names the alternative tool that must follow. It also states negative conditions (never write markdown omitting id, the path must be under plans/scenarios/).

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

All TestChimp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources