Skip to main content
Glama
AishwaryShrivastav

Vibe Testing

by AishwaryShrivastav
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

run_full_test

Run a complete end-to-end test suite: scan codebase, generate scenarios, execute all tests, explore pages, and generate a report. One command for the full testing workflow.

Instructions

Run a complete end-to-end test suite: scan codebase → generate scenarios → execute all → explore pages → generate report. This is the all-in-one command. For more granular control, use the individual tools (scan_codebase, login, explore_page, execute_scenario, generate_report).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoBase URL of the running application (e.g. http://localhost:3000 or https://staging.myapp.com).
modeNofast = quick heuristic scan. deep = full feature extraction with dialogs and CRUD detection.deep
headedNoShow the browser window during testing. Defaults to headless (false) when used via MCP. Set true to watch the browser.
codebase_pathNoAbsolute path to the project root directory. Defaults to the current working directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.6
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "url"
-]New value: +[]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It outlines the high-level steps but omits potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the codebase, creates artifacts, or requires a running application) and does not mention duration or resource usage. It adds moderate value by describing the pipeline but lacks critical operational details for a complex, state-changing operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and step list, followed by the alternative. Zero wasted words. The structure is optimal for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

For a complex tool with 4 optional params and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage guidance. It does not explain what the generated report contains or where it is output, and it omits prerequisites like a running application. However, given the schema covers all parameters, the description is largely complete; the missing behavioral details keep it from a 5.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, e.g., it doesn't explain the interaction between mode and the pipeline steps. It neither improves nor degrades the schema's clarity, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool runs a complete end-to-end test suite, enumerating the pipeline steps (scan → generate scenarios → execute → explore → report). It explicitly labels itself as the 'all-in-one' command, distinguishing it from the granular sibling tools. The verb 'run' and resource 'complete end-to-end test suite' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It directly tells the agent when to use this tool (for full pipeline) and when not to (for granular control), naming the specific sibling tools to use instead. This is explicit exclusion guidance, leaving no ambiguity about selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools