Nopaque TotalPath

Create Mission Tests from a Sheet Import

commitImport

Create up to 1,000 mission-test configs from a ready import, in the background. Takes id, tag (import- then 6 lowercase letters or digits; added to every test so the set can be found and undone) and tests (each the same fields as draftMissionTestConfig; check them with draftMissionTestConfigBatch first). Each test is checked exactly as creating one is; a failure is recorded and the rest are still created. Returns at once with status committing; poll getImport until committed and read commit.created, commit.failed and commit.failures. Only once per import. Use only when the user has asked for the tests to be saved.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "tag": "<tag>",
      "tests": "<tests>"
    },
    "name": "commitImport"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Import identifier.
`tag`	Yes	Added to every test's tags, so the set can be found and undone together.
`tests`	Yes	The tests to create, each the same shape as the `POST /testing/mission-test-configs` body. Each is checked exactly as create checks it; one that fails is recorded in `commit.failures` and the rest are still created.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that execution happens in the background and returns at once with status 'committing', that the caller must poll getImport for the result, and that one failed test does not abort the rest. It names exactly where partial results appear (commit.created, commit.failed, commit.failures) and warns that the tool may be invoked only once per import, which fits its idempotentHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then parameters, then async semantics, then guardrails. There is no filler sentence; every clause carries either a constraint or a next step.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an asynchronous bulk mutation with an output schema, the description covers what the output schema cannot convey: the background execution model, how to poll for completion, and the partial-failure contract. Nothing an agent needs before calling or after calling is missing.

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 100%, so the schema sets the baseline. The description still adds meaning by tying `tag` to purpose (it is added to every test so the set can be found and undone) and by pointing `tests` at the draftMissionTestConfig shape, which is more actionable than the schema's raw POST-body reference.

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?

The description gives a specific verb, resource and count limit: 'Create up to 1,000 mission-test configs from a ready import, in the background.' It also says this belongs downstream of the draft-and-check step, so it is clearly different from draftMissionTestConfig and its batch sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit preconditions ('check them with draftMissionTestConfigBatch first'), an execution limit ('Only once per import'), and a hard constraint on when to use it ('Use only when the user has asked for the tests to be saved'). Together these distinguish it from the drafting and inspection siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Nopaque TotalPath tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.