inventory_testsList existing tests for a package across layers to locate a template that mirrors test structure for new coverage.
List existing tests for a package at one layer (or all layers). Used to find a template to mirror.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| layerId | No | ||
| packageId | No | Package id from discover_packages, e.g. plugins:workspaces/scorecard/plugins/scorecard | |
| packagePath | No |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' communicates a read-only operation, and 'Used to find a template to mirror' hints that the result can serve as a template. However, the description does not disclose the output shape, what matching/scanning behavior is involved, 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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the purpose adds useful intent without 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?
With four optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to explain parameter selection and return value. It clarifies layer/package concepts and the template use case, but it does not explain how to choose between cwd, packageId, and packagePath, nor what the returned inventory looks like.
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?
Schema coverage is only 25%, with cwd, layerId, and packagePath left undocumented. The description compensates partially by mentioning 'one layer (or all layers)' for layerId and the schema example clarifies packageId, but cwd and packagePath semantics remain unexplained in both the schema and description.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List existing tests for a package at one layer (or all layers)'. It also gives an explicit use case, 'Used to find a template to mirror', which distinguishes this inventory tool from sibling analysis/generation tools like get_coverage or generate_test_plan.
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?
'Used to find a template to mirror' provides a clear scenario for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to see this is the inventory step rather than an analysis or generation step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.