eds-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Scaffold a conformance test

scaffold_test

Generate a dependency-free smoke test to verify component contract conformance, including token resolution, state canonicality, regulatory anchors, and a11y compliance.

Instructions

Generate a dependency-free, runnable contract-conformance smoke test for a component (tokens resolve, states canonical, regulatory anchors intact, a11y contract passes, scaffold CSS tokens-only). Ships the test discipline with the component.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "scaffold_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.17.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the test is dependency-free and runnable, but does not detail side effects, file creation, permissions, or output format. The phrase 'ships the test discipline' is vague.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no redundant wording. The action is upfront, and the list of checks is concise. Could be slightly more front-loaded but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify return values and side effects. It does not mention whether the test is written to disk, returned as a string, or how to invoke it afterwards.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only adds that the test is 'for a component', implying the 'id' is a component identifier. However, it does not explain what form the ID takes (path, name, UUID?) or any constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates a dependency-free, runnable contract-conformance smoke test for a component, listing specific checks. It distinguishes from 'scaffold_component' but not from other testing siblings like 'audit_accessibility'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_accessibility' or 'compliance_check'. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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