Attio MCP Server

# Usability Tests - User Experience Validation > **Priority:** Phase 2 - Usability Testing 👥 > **Executor:** Fresh agent (unfamiliar with system) > **Duration:** 2-3 hours > **Focus:** Documentation clarity, parameter understanding, and user experience ## Overview Usability testing validates that the Attio MCP Server tools are intuitive and well-documented for new users. This phase uses a "fresh agent" approach - someone unfamiliar with the system architecture - to identify documentation gaps and usability issues. ### Testing Philosophy **Fresh Agent Approach:** - Executor should be unfamiliar with system internals - Tests user-facing documentation and tool descriptions - Identifies parameter confusion and workflow obstacles - Simulates real-world new user experience ### Test Prerequisites - [ ] All functional testing (P0-P2) completed - [ ] Fresh agent briefed only on basic objectives (no technical details) - [ ] System accessible and stable - [ ] Basic MCP tool list provided ## Usability Test Categories ### Category 1: Tool Discovery & Understanding **Objective:** Validate that users can understand what tools do and when to use them **Test Approach:** 1. **Tool Description Clarity** - Present agent with tool names and descriptions only - Ask agent to predict what each tool does - Compare predictions with actual tool functionality 2. **Use Case Identification** - Present common user scenarios - Ask agent to identify which tools they would use - Validate tool selection against intended usage 3. **Parameter Intuition** - Show tool parameter lists without documentation - Ask agent to predict what each parameter does - Test intuitive understanding of parameter names and types **Success Criteria:** - Agent correctly identifies tool purposes ≥80% of the time - Parameter names are self-explanatory for basic use cases - Tool descriptions match actual functionality --- ### Category 2: Documentation Completeness **Objective:** Validate that documentation provides sufficient guidance for successful tool usage **Test Approach:** 1. **Getting Started Experience** - Provide agent with basic "get started" documentation only - Ask them to complete simple tasks (search, create, update) - Document where they get stuck or confused 2. **Error Message Clarity** - Intentionally trigger common errors (invalid parameters, missing required fields) - Evaluate if error messages provide actionable guidance - Test if users can self-correct based on error feedback 3. **Example Quality** - Provide agent with documented examples - Ask them to modify examples for their own use cases - Test if examples cover common variations and edge cases **Success Criteria:** - Agent can complete basic tasks with documentation alone - Error messages lead to successful problem resolution - Examples can be adapted to new scenarios --- ### Category 3: Workflow Intuitiveness **Objective:** Validate that common workflows are discoverable and logical **Test Scenarios:** #### Scenario 1: New Record Creation Workflow **Task:** "Create a new company record and add a contact person" **Evaluation Points:** - Does agent know to use `get-attributes` first to discover fields? - Can they construct valid `record_data` without extensive trial and error? - Is the relationship between companies and people clear? #### Scenario 2: Data Discovery Workflow **Task:** "Find all companies in the technology industry with more than 100 employees" **Evaluation Points:** - Does agent choose appropriate search tools? - Can they construct effective search filters? - Is the difference between basic and advanced search clear? #### Scenario 3: Troubleshooting Workflow **Task:** "A search is returning no results, but you know the data exists" **Evaluation Points:** - Does agent know how to debug search parameters? - Can they identify and fix common search issues? - Are troubleshooting resources discoverable? **Success Criteria:** - Agent completes workflows with minimal frustration - Logical next steps are apparent at each stage - Alternative approaches are discoverable --- ### Category 4: Parameter Clarity & Error Prevention **Objective:** Validate that parameter requirements and formats are clear **Test Focus Areas:** #### Resource Type Parameters - Are valid resource types clearly documented? - Do error messages help when wrong resource types are used? - Is the relationship between resource types and available operations clear? #### Data Format Requirements - Are JSON format requirements clear for `record_data` parameters? - Do examples show proper field naming and value formats? - Are date format requirements specified and consistent? #### Optional vs Required Parameters - Is it clear which parameters are optional vs required? - Do default values make sense and work as expected? - Are parameter dependencies (if any) clearly documented? **Success Criteria:** - Agent can construct valid parameter combinations on first try ≥70% of the time - Parameter validation errors are self-explanatory - Documentation answers common "how do I..." questions --- ### Category 5: Edge Case Handling **Objective:** Validate graceful handling of boundary conditions and edge cases **Test Scenarios:** #### Data Boundary Tests - Empty result sets (searches with no matches) - Large result sets (pagination behavior) - Invalid or malformed input data - Non-existent record IDs #### System Boundary Tests - Rate limiting behavior (if applicable) - Network timeout scenarios - Permission/authentication edge cases - Concurrent operation handling **Evaluation Criteria:** - Error messages are helpful rather than cryptic - System degrades gracefully under stress - Users understand what went wrong and how to fix it **Success Criteria:** - Edge cases don't cause system crashes or data corruption - Error messages provide actionable guidance - Users can recover from edge case scenarios ## Usability Assessment Framework ### Scoring Methodology Each usability category is scored on a 1-10 scale: | Score | Assessment | Description | |-------|------------|-------------| | **9-10** | Excellent | Intuitive, self-explanatory, minimal friction | | **7-8** | Good | Mostly clear, minor confusion points | | **5-6** | Acceptable | Functional but requires some learning | | **3-4** | Poor | Significant confusion, multiple friction points | | **1-2** | Failing | Major usability barriers, unusable for new users | ### Overall Usability Metrics - **Task Completion Rate:** % of tasks completed without assistance - **Time to Competency:** How long until agent feels confident with basic operations - **Error Recovery Rate:** % of errors that users can resolve independently - **Documentation Effectiveness:** % of questions answered by existing documentation ### Success Thresholds | Metric | Target | Acceptable | Concerning | |---------|---------|------------|------------| | **Task Completion** | ≥90% | ≥80% | <80% | | **Time to Competency** | <30 min | <60 min | >60 min | | **Error Recovery** | ≥80% | ≥70% | <70% | | **Documentation Effectiveness** | ≥85% | ≥75% | <75% | ## Usability Report Template ```markdown ## Usability Test Report - [Date] ### Executive Summary - Overall usability score: [X]/10 - Major usability barriers: [List] - Key recommendations: [List] ### Category Results - Tool Discovery: [Score]/10 - [Notes] - Documentation: [Score]/10 - [Notes] - Workflow Intuition: [Score]/10 - [Notes] - Parameter Clarity: [Score]/10 - [Notes] - Edge Case Handling: [Score]/10 - [Notes] ### Critical Issues Found 1. [Issue description] - [Impact] - [Recommendation] 2. [Issue description] - [Impact] - [Recommendation] ### Enhancement Opportunities 1. [Opportunity] - [Expected benefit] 2. [Opportunity] - [Expected benefit] ### Recommendations - **High Priority:** [Blocking usability issues] - **Medium Priority:** [Friction reduction opportunities] - **Low Priority:** [Nice-to-have improvements] ``` --- **Related Documentation:** - [Previous: P2 Advanced Tests](./p2-advanced-tests.md) - [Back: Test Cases Overview](./index.md) - [Templates: Bug Reporting](../06-bug-reporting.md) - [Reference: Complete Test Plan](../index.md)