Skip to main content
Glama

tarn_run

Run API tests from .tarn.yaml files with environment and tag filtering. Returns compact agent report and artifact paths to keep AI context lean.

Instructions

Run API tests defined in .tarn.yaml files. Writes artifacts under .tarn/runs/<run_id>/ and returns a compact agent report by default plus paths to the full artifacts so agents do not need to keep large JSON blobs in context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoAbsolute path to the project root. tarn.config.yaml, tarn.env.yaml, and relative paths are resolved against this directory. Defaults to the workspace root captured during MCP `initialize`, or the server process's current directory.
envNoEnvironment name (loads tarn.env.{name}.yaml)
pathNoPath to a .tarn.yaml test file or directory containing test files. Relative paths resolve against `cwd`.
report_modeNoWhich slice of the run to return inline. `agent` (default) is the compact root-cause-first payload; `summary` and `failures` return the NAZ-401 artifacts; `full` returns the verbose JSON report. The run still writes every artifact regardless of the chosen mode.
tagNoFilter tests by tag (comma-separated)
varsNoVariable overrides as key-value pairs
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by stating that artifacts are written to `.tarn/runs/<run_id>/` and that the tool returns a compact agent report plus paths to avoid large JSON blobs. It could mention if it is destructive or requires authentication, but the disclosed side effects and return format are valuable.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the primary action and the second providing key behavioral information. No superfluous text; every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, side effects, and return format reasonably well. It could elaborate on the structure of the 'compact agent report' or when to use different report modes, but it is sufficiently complete for most agents.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds context about the compact report and artifact paths but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for individual parameters.

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's purpose: 'Run API tests defined in .tarn.yaml files.' It specifies the action (run), resource (API tests), and distinguishes itself from siblings like tarn_fix_plan or tarn_rerun_failed by mentioning artifact handling and compact reports.

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 siblings (e.g., tarn_run_agent, tarn_rerun_failed). The description implies it's for standard test runs that produce artifacts, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/NazarKalytiuk/tarn'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server