Swipium

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Export the persistent QA test suite

qa_suite_export

Export the repository test suite as Markdown, YAML, JSON, or JUnit, and save the output to .swipium/test-suite-export/ when needed.

Instructions

Export the repo test suite as markdown, yaml, json, or junit; save:true writes it under .swipium/test-suite-export/.

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": {
      "format": "<format>"
    },
    "name": "qa_suite_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`save`	No
`format`	Yes
`sessionId`	No
`projectRoot`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the exact on-disk destination (.swipium/test-suite-export/) when save:true, which is the write side effect an agent most needs to know. It stops short of saying what is returned when save is false or absent.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon clause packs the save behavior efficiently, though the compressed style leaves the sessionId/projectRoot story out entirely.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotation coverage of parameters, the description should say what happens when save is omitted and what sessionId/projectRoot control. It covers the write side effect well but is incomplete for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains save (writes to a named directory) but only restates the format enum already present in the schema, and leaves sessionId and projectRoot completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ("Export") and resource ("the repo test suite") and enumerates the four output formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as qa_suite_read or qa_suite_generate, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The format list and the save:true condition imply usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g. reading the suite vs exporting it). Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement.

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