Skip to main content
Glama

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Test Scenarios

get-test-scenarios
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch test scenarios from the TestChimp platform by ordinal id (numeric part of TS-) and/or external TMS ids (e.g. C12345, PROJ-101 — server strips prefixes and matches numerical part). Returns full plan markdown content, title, platform file path, linked user story ordinal ids, and external_source / external_system_id when present. Use when plan files are not yet synced to the repo, or when linking imported tests to scenarios by TMS id.

Input Schema

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

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: prefix-stripping/numerical matching on external ids and the exact shape of the returned payload (plan markdown, title, file path, linked story ids, external source/system).

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and lookup keys, then return shape, then usage. No filler, though the parenthetical explanation of id formats is slightly packed and could be split for scanability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably. It also covers id semantics for a 4-param tool. The one real omission is behavior when neither id parameter is supplied (schema lists no required params), which an agent calling this would need to know.

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 only 50% — externalIds and scenarioOrdinalIds have no schema description — and the description compensates by defining the ordinal format (numeric part of TS-<n>) and external id formats (C12345, PROJ-101) plus the server-side prefix-stripping rule. The remaining gap is that it doesn't say whether at least one id type is required despite zero required parameters in the schema.

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+resource ('Fetch test scenarios from the TestChimp platform') and names the exact lookup keys (ordinal id, external TMS ids). This clearly distinguishes it from create-test-scenario, update-test-scenario, and list-test-scenarios-for-scope without needing the 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 two concrete triggering conditions: 'when plan files are not yet synced to the repo' and 'when linking imported tests to scenarios by TMS id.' That is strong context, but it never names the alternative tool to use when plan files ARE synced (e.g. get-plans-support-file) or when a scoped list is wanted, so it stops short of explicit 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