Skip to main content
Glama

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List Semantic Nearby

list-semantic-nearby
Read-onlyIdempotent

List semantically nearby entities across types (Story/Scenario/Test/Issue/Event). TEST uses TestLocator; STORY/SCENARIO/ISSUE use sourceOrdinalId; EVENT uses sourceEventTitle. Response TEST hits include TestLocator (never platform test_id).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdNoQA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
limitNo
sourceTestNo
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.
sourceOrdinalIdNo
sourceEntityTypeYes
sourceEventTitleNo
targetEntityTypesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / sourceEntityType / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "STORY",
-  "SCENARIO",
-  "TEST",
-  "ISSUE",
-  "EVENT"
-]New value: +[
+  "UNKNOWN_LINKED_ENTITY_TYPE",
+  "STORY",
+  "SCENARIO",
+  "TEST",
+  "ISSUE",
+  "EXTERNAL",
+  "TEST_EXECUTION",
+  "BATCH_INVOCATION",
+  "POLICY",
+  "EXPLORATION_ENTITY",
+  "EVENT",
+  "WORKFLOW",
+  "JOURNEY_EXECUTION_ENTITY",
+  "RELEASE",
+  "NAMED_TEST_RUN",
+  "SCREEN",
+  "SCREEN_STATE",
+  "API_OPERATION"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / targetEntityTypes / items / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "STORY",
-  "SCENARIO",
-  "TEST",
-  "ISSUE",
-  "EVENT"
-]New value: +[
+  "UNKNOWN_LINKED_ENTITY_TYPE",
+  "STORY",
+  "SCENARIO",
+  "TEST",
+  "ISSUE",
+  "EXTERNAL",
+  "TEST_EXECUTION",
+  "BATCH_INVOCATION",
+  "POLICY",
+  "EXPLORATION_ENTITY",
+  "EVENT",
+  "WORKFLOW",
+  "JOURNEY_EXECUTION_ENTITY",
+  "RELEASE",
+  "NAMED_TEST_RUN",
+  "SCREEN",
+  "SCREEN_STATE",
+  "API_OPERATION"
+]
  2. 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"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the output contract: TEST hits return TestLocator, never platform test_id. That is a genuinely useful caveat an agent could not derive from structured fields. It does not describe similarity semantics or limits, hence not a 5.

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 scope then the discriminator rules. No filler, though the shorthand phrasing (TestLocator, sourceOrdinalId) assumes familiarity with the domain.

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?

Adequate but incomplete: no output schema exists, so the brief return note helps, yet the description never explains what "semantic nearby" means, how targetEntityTypes filters results, or what limit controls. Reasonable for a read-only list tool, but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage across 8 params, the description does real work by mapping sourceEntityType values to the right source parameter (TestLocator for TEST, sourceOrdinalId for STORY/SCENARIO/ISSUE, sourceEventTitle for EVENT). It still leaves targetEntityTypes and limit unexplained.

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: list semantically nearby entities across five named types, which implicitly separates it from the test-only sibling list-semantic-similar-tests. It stops short of naming that sibling, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by "semantically nearby across types" plus the per-type source selectors, so an agent can infer when to call it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against list-semantic-similar-tests.

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