TestChimp

Get TrueCoverage Event Transition

get-truecoverage-event-transition

Read-onlyIdempotent

TrueCoverage detailed transition stats between two events (GetDetailedEventTransitionSummaryRequest). Requires eventTitle, nextEventTitle, baseScope (environment + timeWindow); optional coverageScope. metadataFilters on scopes are ignored. Uses baseScope/coverageScope field names.

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>",
      "nextEventTitle": "<nextEventTitle>",
      "baseScope": "<baseScope>"
    },
    "name": "get-truecoverage-event-transition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`botId`	No	QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
`baseScope`	Yes
`eventTitle`	Yes
`coverageScope`	No
`projectApiKey`	No	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.
`nextEventTitle`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

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"
+}

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds a real behavioral caveat: metadataFilters on scopes are silently ignored. It does not, however, describe the shape of the returned transition stats.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then required/optional fields, then the caveat. Dense with implementation jargon (request type name, field-name note) but no wasted sentences.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with deep nested objects and no output schema, the description covers invocation essentials but omits what the transition stats contain and any auth/prerequisite context beyond the schema's own notes. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does partially: it names the baseScope/coverageScope vocabulary, flags required vs optional, and warns that scope metadataFilters are ignored. It still leaves botId, projectApiKey, and the scope fields' semantics largely to the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'detailed transition stats between two events'. It is distinguishable from siblings like get-truecoverage-event-details and get-truecoverage-child-event-tree by naming the transition/between-events scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It tells the agent which fields are required (eventTitle, nextEventTitle, baseScope) and which is optional (coverageScope), plus a 'metadataFilters ignored' caveat, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the other truecoverage retrieval tools. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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

All TestChimp tools Inspect

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.