Repo Test Architect

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Analyze Project Test Placement

analyze_project_test_placement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Derive advisory test-placement findings for multiple audited projects from an existing project-audits/v1 artifact while preserving project identity, without rescanning or modifying files.

Instructions

Derive advisory test-placement findings across an existing project-audits/v1 artifact while preserving project identity. Use this for multiple audited projects; use analyze_test_placement for one audit/v1 artifact. Does not rescan the repository, execute tests, or create, move, or modify files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectAudits`	Yes	The project-audits/v1 object returned by audit_projects; pass the artifact itself, not a file path.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`findings`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / projectAudits / description

Previous value: -"A project-audits/v1 artifact."New value: +"The project-audits/v1 object returned by audit_projects; pass the artifact itself, not a file path."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$id": "test-placement-findings-v1.schema.json",
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "findings": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "action": {
+            "enum": [
+              "move",
+              "split",
+              "keep"
+            ]
+          },
+          "currentOwner": {
+            "minLength": 1,
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "evidence": {
+            "items": {
+              "minLength": 1,
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "minItems": 1,
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "minLength": 1,
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "minLength": 1,
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "suggestedOwner": {
+            "minLength": 1,
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "testFile": {
+            "minLength": 1,
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "testFile",
+          "currentOwner",
+          "suggestedOwner",
+          "action",
+          "reason",
+          "evidence"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "schemaVersion": {
+      "const": "test-placement-findings/v1"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schemaVersion",
+    "findings"
+  ],
+  "title": "Test Placement Findings Artifact",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: findings are 'advisory', the repository is not rescanned, and no files are created, moved, or modified — meaningful scope limits for an agent gauging side effects and cost.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose/scope first, sibling routing second, negative constraints last. No filler, and the most important routing information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers what the tool consumes (an existing artifact, not the repo), what it produces (advisory findings), and what it refuses to do, which is complete for a 1-parameter read-only analysis tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already explains it must be the project-audits/v1 object from audit_projects, not a file path. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema carries the load and the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (derive), resource (advisory test-placement findings), and input scope (across an existing project-audits/v1 artifact). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling analyze_test_placement, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing rule: 'Use this for multiple audited projects; use analyze_test_placement for one audit/v1 artifact.' It also states what it does not do (no rescan, no test execution, no file mutation), giving clear boundaries.

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