Skip to main content
Glama

coding_run_tests

Automate test execution by providing a free-text objective and optional structured inputs to a coding agent, which runs the tests within your project.

Instructions

Run the coding domain agent action run_tests.

Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.

Args: message: Free-text objective for the action. inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo
inputsNo{}

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but omits critical behavioral details like synchronous vs asynchronous execution, side effects on environment, or test result handling.

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 concise with a clear opening sentence and an Args section. No wasted words, though the Args listing could be streamlined. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., test results). Important behavioral details for a test runner are missing, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions), but the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This significantly clarifies parameter purpose beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description states the verb 'Run' and resource 'tests', clearly indicating it executes tests. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other coding run tools like coding_run_command or coding_run_pipeline, relying on the action name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for preferred use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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/RPasquale/lightbulb-mcp'

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