Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List Semantic Similar Tests

list-semantic-similar-tests
Read-onlyIdempotent

List semantically similar SmartTest pairs in scope using TestLocators (no test_id). Pairs are deduped (A→B only when A.testId < B.testId). Distinct-marked pairs are excluded.

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-semantic-similar-tests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdNoQA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
scopeNo
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 / scope / properties / artifactType
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "UNKNOWN_ARTIFACT_TYPE",
+    "USER_STORY_ARTIFACT",
+    "SCENARIO_ARTIFACT"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope / properties / ids
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the dedup rule (A→B only when A.testId < B.testId) and the exclusion of distinct-marked pairs. It does not cover auth requirements, though the schema spells out projectApiKey.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Minor jargon density ("TestLocator", "distinct-marked") slightly raises the reading cost but 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it partially does (pair orientation and dedup). It leaves out what qualifies as "semantically similar" (threshold/source) and any pagination or volume expectations for a nested-scope list tool.

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 67%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description only clarifies one nuance — scope selection is by TestLocators rather than test_id — and adds nothing about botId, projectApiKey, or how scope fields (ids/filePaths/folderPath/artifactType) interact.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("List semantically similar SmartTest pairs") plus the scope mechanism (TestLocators) and the output shape (deduped A→B pairs). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not name the sibling list-semantic-nearby to distinguish itself from it.

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?

The parenthetical "(no test_id)" and "in scope" imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list-semantic-nearby or list-related-perf-tests. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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