Skip to main content
Glama

estimate_audit

Estimate mutant count and audit duration for a source file, so you can decide whether to audit, scope down, or skip.

Instructions

Cheap pre-flight estimate of how big/long auditing a file will be, WITHOUT running the full mutation test cycle. Returns an approximate mutant count (for Rust, an exact count of the mutants cargo-mutants --list GENERATES — the audit scores fewer, excluding unviable ones as incompetent; a source heuristic for TS/JS/Python/PHP, labeled fidelity:"approx"). Set withTiming:true to also run the test suite once and estimate wall-clock time. Use this before audit_code_resilience to decide whether to audit now, scope down, or skip.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesPath to the source file to estimate, within the workspace. Example: "src/math.ts".
timeoutMsNoThe audit budget in milliseconds this estimate is GRADED against: budgetMs echoes it, and fitsBudget/recommendation compare the estimated time to it. Resolved exactly as audit_code_resilience resolves its own timeoutMs (same argument, config keys, and per-language defaults), so an estimate answers the question for the audit you would actually run. Default: 300000 (5 minutes). Must be <= 2147483647 (the largest delay a timer accepts). Example: 120000.
withTimingNoWhen true, run the test suite once to measure a baseline and estimate total wall-clock time (mutants × baseline / concurrency). Default false (count only, no test run).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
basisYes
targetYes
mutantsYes
budgetMsNo
fidelityYes
languageYes
workspaceNoAbsolute workspace root that `target` is relative to. Present only when that root is not the server's working directory (a monorepo package, or another root via CHAOS_ALLOWED_ROOTS). `join(workspace, target)` is a path this tool accepts as `filePath`; when the field is absent, `target` already is one.
baselineMsNo
fitsBudgetNo
concurrencyNo
estimatedMsNo
optimisticMsNo
upperBoundMsNo
recommendationNo
timingConfidenceNo
Install Server

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals that no full mutation cycle runs, that Rust counts are exact cargo-mutants candidates, that other languages use a heuristic labeled 'approx', and that withTiming:true adds a test-suite run. It does not mention errors, permissions, or edge-cases, but the main behavioral trade-offs are well disclosed.

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: purpose first, then key behavioral caveats, then usage guidance. The parenthetical about Rust versus TS/JS/Python/PHP is technical but earns its place since that fidelity distinction is essential for acting on the estimate.

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?

Given the output schema exists and all parameters are documented in the schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, language-specific fidelity, and integration with a sibling tool. It could add preconditions or failure modes, but it is substantially complete for this tool's scope.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already thoroughly documents filePath, timeoutMs, and withTiming. The description adds some context around withTiming and the estimate's relationship to audit_code_resilience, but it does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter details. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it is a 'Cheap pre-flight estimate' of auditing a file, and it explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it runs WITHOUT the full mutation test cycle. It also differentiates from sibling audit_code_resilience by framing this tool as the pre-flight decision aid before running that audit.

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?

The description clearly says 'Use this before audit_code_resilience to decide whether to audit now, scope down, or skip,' giving explicit usage context and naming the primary alternative. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with triage_test_coverage, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AraneaDev/Chaos-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server