Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get TrueCoverage Child Event Tree

get-truecoverage-child-event-tree
Read-onlyIdempotent

TrueCoverage next-event tree after an event (ListChildEventTreeRequest). Requires eventTitle, baseScope (environment + timeWindow); optional coverageScope for PRESENT/ABSENT. Note: metadataFilters on scopes are ignored for transition stats. Field names are baseScope/coverageScope (not baseExecutionScope).

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": {
      "eventTitle": "<eventTitle>",
      "baseScope": "<baseScope>"
    },
    "name": "get-truecoverage-child-event-tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdNoQA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
baseScopeYes
eventTitleYes
coverageScopeNo
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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral caveats beyond them: metadataFilters on scopes are ignored for transition stats, and the naming warning about baseScope/coverageScope vs baseExecutionScope. These prevent silent misuse that annotations wouldn't catch.

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 information-dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then requirements, then caveats. No wasted words; slightly terse for the amount of domain concept being introduced.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tree contains and its shape; it does not. It covers invocation prerequisites and one gotcha but leaves return-value meaning entirely implicit, which for a nested-input analytic tool is a gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 40%, below half, so the description must compensate. It does establish the required/optional split and the field-naming trap, but never explains eventTitle semantics or the coverageScope conditions beyond 'for PRESENT/ABSENT' in passing. Partial compensation, so a baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource ('next-event tree after an event') and references ListChildEventTreeRequest, which clarifies the underlying operation. However, 'TrueCoverage' and 'child event tree' are domain jargon not explained, and it doesn't distinguish this from close siblings like get-truecoverage-event-transition or get-truecoverage-event-details.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It states prerequisites (requires eventTitle, baseScope; optional coverageScope for PRESENT/ABSENT) but never says when to choose this over siblings such as get-truecoverage-event-transition or get-truecoverage-event-details. No 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
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