list-perf-baselinesList promoted performance baselines, optionally filtered by TestChimp id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| botId | No | QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding. | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| testchimpId | 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / botIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.",
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / projectApiKeyAdded 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"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the 'promoted' qualifier (only promoted baselines are returned, not all), which is genuine extra context, but it omits pagination behavior and the per-call auth requirement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core purpose precedes the optional filter clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and with 5 parameters (limit/offset pagination undocumented) plus a low-coverage schema, the description leaves real gaps for an agent needing to page through results. Annotations carry the safety profile, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40% (botId and projectApiKey documented, limit/offset/testchimpId bare). The description restates only the testchimpId filter and adds no meaning for limit, offset, or the credential params, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('List promoted performance baselines') and a filter dimension, so the agent knows this returns baselines rather than runs or tests. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list-perf-runs or compare-perf-to-baseline, but the 'baselines' noun is specific enough to place it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only 'optionally filtered by TestChimp id' hints at usage. There is no statement of when to use this versus list-perf-runs, list-related-perf-tests, or promote-perf-baseline, and no mention of pagination or the read-only retrieval context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.