Skip to main content
Glama

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Bot Profile

get-bot-profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch this QA bot's registration: botId, project, the team member it represents (userId), platform, status, role, responsibilities, capabilities, event subscriptions, paused flag, and webhook health, plus settingsUrl (link the user to it for webhook setup or pausing; never describe menu navigation). botId defaults to the bot-id header (TESTCHIMP_BOT_ID) or the OAuth token's bot. Use to confirm identity before onboarding and to check paused / capabilities before running routines.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdNoQA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / botId / description
      Added value: +"QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding."
    • 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: botId falls back to the bot-id header or the OAuth token's bot, and it warns never to describe menu navigation when pointing users at settingsUrl.

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?

Effectively two dense sentences: the field inventory first, then defaults and usage. Front-loaded and earns its length for the number of returned fields, though the field enumeration is long enough to warrant skimming.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the primary return fields (status, role, capabilities, paused, webhook health, settingsUrl), covering the botId default resolution, and stating when to call it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 resolution semantics the schema lacks: botId defaults to the TESTCHIMP_BOT_ID header or the OAuth token's bot. projectApiKey semantics come from the schema, not the description.

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 (Fetch) and resource (this QA bot's registration) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like register-bot-profile (write) and get-bot-credentials (secret retrieval).

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 concrete usage contexts: confirm identity before onboarding, and check paused/capabilities before running routines, plus settingsUrl for webhook setup. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest read alternatives (get-bot-compat, get-bot-credentials), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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