CTS MCP Server

# CTS MCP Server - Comprehensive Test Results **Date:** 2025-10-31 **Testing Phases:** Smoke → Deep Validation → E2E Functional **Critical Finding:** Multi-layered false positive cascade --- ## 🚨 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ### The Cascade of False Positives **Phase 1: Smoke Test** → 50% pass rate (4/8 tools) **Phase 2: Deep Validation** → 25% pass rate (1/4 tools) **Phase 3: E2E Functional** → **0% pass rate (0/1 tools)** ← TRUTH REVEALED ### Critical Discovery **CTS_Reasoning is fundamentally broken:** - ✅ Returns valid JSON-RPC responses - ✅ Has correct MCP schema structure - ✅ Contains required fields (reasoning_chain, iterations, stages) - ❌ **BUT: Returns hardcoded template strings, not actual reasoning** **Source Code Evidence (`src/tools/reasoning/core.ts` line 127):** ```typescript private generateThought(stage: string, context: ReasoningContext): string { // Placeholder implementation - in production would integrate with AI const thoughts: Record<string, string> = { 'Problem Definition': `Analyzing problem: ${context.topic}. Key aspects to consider...`, 'Information Gathering': `Collecting relevant information about ${context.topic}...`, 'Analysis': `Examining the data and patterns related to ${context.topic}...`, // ... }; return thoughts[stage] || `Thinking about ${stage} for ${context.topic}...`; } ``` **The tool never does actual reasoning** - it just returns placeholder templates with the topic inserted. --- ## 📊 Test Results by Phase ### Phase 1: Smoke Test (Basic Execution) **Method:** Check if tool responds with any content **Pass Rate:** 50% (4/8 tools) | Tool | Result | Time | Issue | |------|--------|------|-------| | CTS_Reasoning | ✅ PASS | 84ms | FALSE POSITIVE - returns templates | | CTS_Bughunter | ❌ FAIL | 133ms | tree-sitter WASM missing | | CTS_Cleanup | ❌ FAIL | 121ms | stderr logging (cosmetic) | | CTS_Render_Artifact | ✅ PASS | 109ms | Likely has issues too | | CTS_Scan_Project_Signals | ❌ FAIL | 109ms | tree-sitter WASM missing | | CTS_Suggest_Refactoring | ❌ FAIL | 136ms | tree-sitter WASM missing | | CTS_Export_to_Shrimp | ✅ PASS | 97ms | Custom schema (not MCP standard) | | cts_audit | ❌ FAIL | 101ms | stderr logging (cosmetic) | **False Positive:** CTS_Reasoning appeared to work --- ### Phase 2: Deep Validation (Schema Compliance) **Method:** Validate JSON structure, field types, content arrays **Pass Rate:** 25% (1/4 tools) | Tool | Execute | Schema | Issue Found | |------|---------|--------|-------------| | CTS_Reasoning | ✅ | ✅ | FALSE POSITIVE - schema valid, content invalid | | CTS_Bughunter | ✅ | ❌ | Missing `summary` field | | CTS_Render_Artifact | ✅ | ❌ | Missing D3.js library in HTML | | CTS_Export_to_Shrimp | ✅ | ❌ | Custom schema vs MCP standard | **Validation Performed:** - ✅ `reasoning_chain` array exists - ✅ Each iteration has `iteration`, `stage`, `thought`, `next_thought_needed` - ✅ Iteration numbers sequential (1, 2, 3...) - ✅ Stages are valid strings **What Was Missed:** - ❌ Content quality (are thoughts meaningful?) - ❌ Actual reasoning (does it analyze the problem?) - ❌ Causal logic (does it explain "why"?) **False Positive:** CTS_Reasoning has valid schema but meaningless content --- ### Phase 3: E2E Functional Testing **Method:** Validate actual behavior, content quality, problem-solving ability **Pass Rate:** 0% (0/2 test cases) #### Test Case 1: Simple Math Problem **Topic:** Calculate optimal GDScript file size limit **Result:** ✅ PASS (but only by luck) **Why it passed:** - Topic keywords happened to appear in templates - Simple enough that placeholders looked reasonable - Test didn't check for deep causal reasoning #### Test Case 2: Technical Analysis **Topic:** Why tree-sitter-gdscript fails on Node 22.18.0 ABI 127 **Result:** ❌ **FAIL - Exposed the truth** **Actual Output:** ``` Iteration 1: "Analyzing problem: Why might tree-sitter-gdscript fail... Key aspects to consider..." Iteration 2: "Collecting relevant information about Why might tree-sitter-gdscript fail..." Iteration 3: "Examining the data and patterns related to Why might tree-sitter-gdscript fail..." Iteration 4: "Combining insights to form a coherent understanding of Why might tree-sitter-gdscript fail..." ``` **Missing:** - ❌ No causal reasoning ("because", "therefore", "implies") - ❌ No technical analysis (doesn't mention ABI compatibility, native modules, Node versions) - ❌ No actual insights or conclusions - ❌ Just templates with topic name inserted **Validation Checks Failed:** - Found 0/5 causal reasoning indicators - Lacks problem-solving language - No "why" or "how" explanations - Pure template placeholder text --- ## 🔍 Root Cause Analysis ### CTS_Reasoning Implementation Status **What's Implemented (70%):** - ✅ MCP protocol integration (JSON-RPC, stdio transport) - ✅ Tool schema definition (input validation) - ✅ Response structure (content array, text type) - ✅ Template-driven reasoning stages - ✅ Iteration management (count, progression, termination) **What's Missing (30% - THE CRITICAL PART):** - ❌ **Actual reasoning logic** - ❌ AI/LLM integration for thought generation - ❌ Problem analysis algorithms - ❌ Causal inference engine - ❌ Context-aware reasoning ### The Bug **File:** `src/tools/reasoning/core.ts` **Function:** `generateThought()` (line 126-137) **Status:** **Placeholder implementation with TODO comment** ```typescript /** * Generate reasoning thought for current stage * * @param stage - Current reasoning stage * @param context - Reasoning context * @returns Generated thought text */ private generateThought(stage: string, context: ReasoningContext): string { // Placeholder implementation - in production would integrate with AI const thoughts: Record<string, string> = { 'Problem Definition': `Analyzing problem: ${context.topic}. Key aspects to consider...`, 'Information Gathering': `Collecting relevant information about ${context.topic}...`, 'Analysis': `Examining the data and patterns related to ${context.topic}...`, 'Synthesis': `Combining insights to form a coherent understanding of ${context.topic}...`, 'Conclusion': `Drawing final conclusions about ${context.topic}...`, 'Critical Questioning': `Challenging assumptions about ${context.topic}...`, }; return thoughts[stage] || `Thinking about ${stage} for ${context.topic}...`; } ``` **The comment is explicit:** `// Placeholder implementation - in production would integrate with AI` This was **intentionally left unimplemented** as a stub for future AI integration. --- ## 🎓 Testing Lessons Learned ### The Testing Pyramid Failed ``` E2E Functional Test ← Found the truth (0% pass) ↑ Deep Schema Validation ← False positive (100% pass) ↑ Smoke Test ← False positive (100% pass) ``` ### Why Each Layer Failed **Smoke Test:** - **Checked:** "Does tool respond?" - **Missed:** Content quality - **Result:** Placeholder responses look like success **Deep Validation:** - **Checked:** "Is response schema correct?" - **Missed:** Content semantics - **Result:** Template strings pass structure validation **E2E Functional:** - **Checked:** "Does output solve the problem?" - **Found:** Tool doesn't actually reason - **Result:** TRUTH REVEALED ### Quinn's Testing Philosophy Validated **From Quinn (Testing Expert).prompt.md:** > "Test behavior, not implementation. Validate outcomes, not code paths." We tested: - ❌ Implementation (schema structure) ← WRONG - ✅ Behavior (problem-solving ability) ← RIGHT **The fix:** Always include E2E functional tests that validate actual problem-solving, not just response format. --- ## 🔧 Other Issues Discovered ### Issue #1: tree-sitter Dependency (BLOCKER) **Affects:** 4/14 tools (29%) - CTS_Bughunter - CTS_Suggest_Refactoring - CTS_Analyze_Project - CTS_Scan_Project_Signals **Error:** ``` No native build found for platform=linux arch=x64 runtime=node abi=127 node=22.18.0 ``` **Fix Required:** ```bash cd /home/eric/Godot/ProtoBd/cts_mcp cd node_modules/tree-sitter-gdscript && node-gyp rebuild ``` **Priority:** 🔥 CRITICAL --- ### Issue #2: Custom Schemas (Not MCP Standard) **Affects:** CTS_Export_to_Shrimp, possibly others **Example:** ```json // Tool returns: { "success": true, "shrimpTasksFormat": [...], "instructions": [...] } // MCP standard expects: { "updateMode": "append", "hopPlan": {...} } ``` **Impact:** Reduces interoperability with MCP clients **Priority:** MEDIUM (functional but non-standard) --- ### Issue #3: Missing Dependencies in Rendered Artifacts **Affects:** CTS_Render_Artifact **Problem:** HTML references D3.js but doesn't include the library **Fix:** Add CDN link to HTML template **Priority:** MEDIUM --- ## 📋 Recommendations for Tier 2C ### Task 2C.2: Enhanced Error Handling → EXPAND SCOPE **Add:** 1. Schema standardization for all tool responses 2. **E2E functional validation in CI/CD** 3. Content quality checks (not just structure) 4. Placeholder/template detection ### NEW Task 2C.9: Implement CTS_Reasoning Core Logic **Priority:** 🔥 CRITICAL **Requirements:** 1. Replace `generateThought()` placeholder with actual reasoning 2. Options: - **Option A:** Integrate with OpenAI/Anthropic API for LLM reasoning - **Option B:** Implement rule-based reasoning engine - **Option C:** Use MCP sampling protocol to delegate to Claude 3. Add functional tests to prevent regressions 4. Document reasoning capabilities and limitations **Estimated Effort:** 8-16 hours (medium complexity) --- ## 🛠️ Test Infrastructure Created ### Files Created 1. **test_all_tools.js** (235 lines) - Smoke test suite - 8 tools tested - Basic execution validation 2. **test_deep_validation.js** (410 lines) - Schema compliance testing - JSON structure validation - Content array checking 3. **test_e2e_functional.js** (280 lines) - **Functional behavior validation** ← THE CRITICAL ONE - Problem-solving ability testing - Content quality checking - Causal reasoning detection 4. **inspect_reasoning_output.js** (60 lines) - Response debugging tool - Shows actual tool output - Exposes template placeholders ### Testing Methodology **Phase 1:** Smoke (execution) **Phase 2:** Deep (schema) **Phase 3:** E2E (behavior) ← **MUST HAVE FOR ALL TOOLS** --- ## 📊 Tool Status Matrix | Tool | Smoke | Schema | E2E | Status | |------|-------|--------|-----|--------| | CTS_Reasoning | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | **BROKEN - placeholder only** | | CTS_Bughunter | ❌ | ❌ | ❓ | tree-sitter missing | | CTS_Cleanup | ⚠️ | ❓ | ❓ | tree-sitter missing | | cts_audit | ⚠️ | ❓ | ❓ | Not tested (E2E needed) | | CTS_Render_Artifact | ✅ | ❌ | ❓ | Missing D3.js | | CTS_Export_to_Shrimp | ✅ | ❌ | ❓ | Custom schema | | CTS_Scan_Project_Signals | ❌ | ❓ | ❓ | tree-sitter missing | | CTS_Suggest_Refactoring | ❌ | ❓ | ❓ | tree-sitter missing | | CTS_Analyze_Project | ❓ | ❓ | ❓ | Untested (hung during execution) | **Legend:** - ✅ Passes - ❌ Fails - ⚠️ Passes with warnings - ❓ Not yet tested **Recommendation:** Run E2E functional tests on ALL tools before declaring Tier 2B complete. --- ## 🎯 Next Steps ### Immediate (Blocking Tier 2B Completion) 1. **Implement CTS_Reasoning actual logic** (not placeholder) 2. **Fix tree-sitter dependency** (rebuild native module) 3. **Run E2E tests on all 14 tools** (expose other false positives) ### Tier 2C Execution 1. **Add E2E testing to CI/CD** (prevent future placeholders shipping) 2. **Schema standardization** (Task 2C.2) 3. **Dependency management** (postinstall scripts) --- **Prepared By:** Testing analysis following Quinn (Testing Expert) methodology **Key Insight:** "Schema validation ≠ Functional validation" **Status:** 🔴 **Tier 2B NOT COMPLETE - CTS_Reasoning requires reimplementation**