TestChimp

List Related Perf Tests

list-related-perf-tests

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find JOURNEY and, by default, COMPOSITE performance tests related to scenario titles and/or TestChimp ids.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list-related-perf-tests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`botId`	No	QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
`limit`	No
`testchimpIds`	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.
`scenarioTitles`	No
`includeComposites`	No

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the default-inclusion behavior for COMPOSITE tests; it says nothing about return shape or why tests count as 'related'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that establishes the resource and the query inputs immediately. Slightly dense but every clause carries meaning and nothing is wasted.

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 list tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain the return shape or what makes a perf test 'related'. Annotations cover the safety profile, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates partially by mapping 'scenario titles' to scenarioTitles, 'TestChimp ids' to testchimpIds, and the default to includeComposites. However limit and the auth semantics of botId/projectApiKey remain undocumented in the description, leaving real gaps.

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 (Find) and resource (JOURNEY and COMPOSITE performance tests) with the query dimension (scenario titles and/or TestChimp ids). It is distinguishable from siblings like list-perf-runs, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as list-perf-runs or compare-perf-to-baseline. The only hint is 'by default COMPOSITE', which implies the includeComposites toggle but not when this tool should be chosen.

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.