test-genie-mcp

create_test_plan

Build test plans from stored scenarios using priority and type filters, optionally scheduling runs by duration to generate targeted test execution.

Instructions

[mode: real] Build a test plan from stored scenarios with filtering / scheduling.

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": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`template`	No
`typeFilter`	No
`maxDuration`	No
`projectPath`	Yes
`priorityFilter`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool creates a test plan but does not explain side effects, permissions, or the meaning of the '[mode: real]' prefix. It is unclear whether it writes to disk or affects stored scenarios.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no wasted words, and the '[mode: real]' prefix is front-loaded. While concise, it is exceptionally terse, but brevity itself is not penalized; it is appropriate for a simple tool description.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a high-level purpose and does not explain required parameters, filter semantics, scheduling behavior, or return values. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional schema inference.

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 provides almost no parameter-level detail. It hints at 'filtering' but does not map this to the typeFilter or priorityFilter parameters, and 'scheduling' does not clearly correspond to any schema parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the six parameters beyond a vague conceptual link.

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 builds a test plan from stored scenarios, using a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('test plan'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it operates on existing scenarios rather than generating or executing them.

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 description implies the tool is for creating plans from existing scenarios and mentions filtering/scheduling, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like run_scenario_test or generate_scenarios. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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