Skip to main content
Glama

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List Tests Awaiting Verification

list-tests-awaiting-verification
Read-onlyIdempotent

List SmartTests whose latest executions still need human verification before they earn a verified badge (testId, testName, filePath, scenarioId / scenarioOrdinalId / scenarioTitle, verificationStatus NOT_VERIFIED or VERIFIED_STALE, reportedAtMillis, workflowExecutionId). Optional userId narrows to tests authored for that user (defaults to the OAuth token's user); optional limit. Use after writing E2E tests to prompt the user to verify the executions.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdNoQA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
limitNo
userIdNo
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 / 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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
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, closed-world), yet the description adds genuine operational context: the inclusion criteria (verificationStatus NOT_VERIFIED or VERIFIED_STALE) and the default that userId falls back to the OAuth token's user. It still omits pagination/truncation behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filter semantics, then the usage trigger; no filler sentences. The parenthetical field list is long but earns its place given there is no output schema. Slightly dense as a single wall of text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and explains what qualifies a test for inclusion plus the userId default. Missing only secondary details such as default/max limit handling and result ordering, which are minor for a read-only listing tool.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50% (botId and projectApiKey are documented in-schema, limit and userId are not). The description compensates for the most important gap by explaining what userId narrows and its OAuth-token default, though 'optional limit' adds little beyond restating the parameter name.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (List) plus a precisely qualified resource (SmartTests whose latest executions still need human verification) and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from neighbors like list-semantic-similar-tests or mark-tests-for-review without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use after writing E2E tests to prompt the user to verify the executions.' It clearly frames the workflow context but names no alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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