Skip to main content
Glama

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Plans Support File

get-plans-support-file
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a file under the mapped plans root from the platform by relative path (no git required). Primary use: load a workflow execution plan named in a Continue Locally / implement prompt before falling back to the repo copy. filePath is relative to the plans mapped root (leading plans/ is stripped). Under workflow_plans/, filenames are coerced to *.plan.md. Response: found (false if missing), supportFileId, filePath (canonical), filetype, content.

Input Schema

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond them: leading 'plans/' is stripped, filenames under workflow_plans/ are coerced to *.plan.md, and the response shape including found=false on miss. It omits auth/permission notes, but those are carried in the schema.

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-loads verb+resource, then use, then parameter rules, then response fields. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly crowded into one block but no wasted sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description steps in to describe the return fields (found, supportFileId, filePath, filetype, content), plus the missing-file case and path normalization. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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 67%; botId and projectApiKey are documented in the schema, while filePath alone is undocumented there. The description compensates by defining filePath semantics precisely (relative to plans mapped root, stripped prefix, coercion rule), which is more than the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (a file under the mapped plans root) with explicit scope ('no git required'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the write counterpart upsert-plans-support-file and from the repo copy it falls back from.

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?

States the primary use case (loading a workflow execution plan named in a Continue Locally / implement prompt) and the ordering versus the repo fallback. It does not explicitly name upsert-plans-support-file as the write alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not.

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