Generates a recommended test checklist for a given context, such as RCRCRC for regression testing. Use it to get structured test items aligned with testing techniques and heuristics.
Produce a recommended test checklist (items) for a context, e.g. RCRCRC for regression.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the output is 'recommended', implying heuristic or non-exhaustive content, but does not describe determinism, generation process, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and deliverable. The example is compact and every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so baseline requirements are modest. However, the cryptic RCRCRC example, absence of behavioral details, and lack of sibling differentiation make the description less complete than it could be.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only names 'context' with no description, so the description must compensate. It adds a concrete example ('RCRCRC for regression'), giving some meaning, but leaves allowed formats, scope, and valid context values vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('Produce') and a concrete deliverable ('recommended test checklist (items)'), scoped to a context. The example 'RCRCRC for regression' clarifies the intended use, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_test_cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as generate_test_cases, catalog_techniques, or catalog_heuristics. The phrase 'for a context' implies a use case but does not state selection criteria, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.