ai-test-process-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Generate Test Plan Draft

generate_test_plan_draft

Generate a test plan draft conforming to ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3 in markdown from your project details, with missing fields marked as TBD.

Instructions

Generates an ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3 conformant test plan document draft in markdown from project information. Fields not provided are marked as TBD.

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": {
      "projectName": "<projectName>",
      "scope": "<scope>"
    },
    "name": "generate_test_plan_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`team`	No
`risks`	No
`scope`	Yes	What is in scope for testing (features, systems, boundaries)
`approvers`	No
`objectives`	No	Test objectives / goals
`environment`	No	Test environment needs (hardware, software, data, tools)
`projectName`	Yes	Name of the project or system under test
`deliverables`	No
`featuresToTest`	No
`passFailCriteria`	No
`featuresNotToTest`	No
`suspensionCriteria`	No
`scheduleConstraints`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a draft, conformant to a standard, in markdown, with TBD for omitted fields. However, it does not clarify if the document is returned or saved, any authentication needs, or side effects like overwriting existing files. Behavior is partially transparent but incomplete.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the most critical information (purpose, standard, output format, missing field behavior) front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what to expect in the markdown output beyond TBD, nor how to effectively use the many input fields. The description lacks detail needed for a complex generation 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?

The description does not explain individual parameters beyond the generic 'from project information' statement. With only 31% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding meaning for the majority of parameters. The schema has descriptions for only 4 of 13 parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter-level context.

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 generates an ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3 conformant test plan document draft in markdown from project information, with placeholder TBD for missing fields. The verb 'generates' and the specific resource and format leave no ambiguity, and since no sibling tools exist, differentiation is not needed.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the absence of sibling tools reduces the need for differentiation. The description implies usage when a test plan draft is needed, but does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

generate_test_plan_draftA