Repo Test Architect

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Analyze Test Placement

analyze_test_placement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Derive advisory test-placement findings from an existing single-project audit artifact to identify where tests should live without rescanning or modifying the repository.

Instructions

Derive advisory test-placement findings from an existing single-project audit/v1 artifact. Use this for one audited project; use analyze_project_test_placement for a project-audits/v1 artifact. Does not rescan the repository, execute tests, or create, move, or modify files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`audit`	Yes	The audit/v1 object returned by audit_repo or contained in projectAudits.audits[].audit; pass the artifact itself, not a file path.
`owner`	No	Optional owner label for the audited project. Defaults to audit.profile.root.

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 / audit / description

Previous value: -"An audit/v1 artifact."New value: +"The audit/v1 object returned by audit_repo or contained in projectAudits.audits[].audit; 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 behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it does not rescan the repository, execute tests, or modify files, and its findings are advisory. This tells the agent it is a pure derivation step rather than an execution step; richer detail on output shape is unnecessary since an output schema exists.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the alternative-sibling routing rule, and the non-mutation boundary. The core purpose is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

For a read-only derivation tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: the required artifact form, the sibling disambiguation, and the explicit guarantee that no rescanning or file mutation occurs.

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%, with the schema already explaining that the audit object is the artifact itself (not a path) and defining the optional owner default. The description reinforces the artifact type but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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+resource ('Derive advisory test-placement findings') and names the exact input artifact type (audit/v1). It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling analyze_project_test_placement, so an agent can disambiguate 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('for one audited project') and names the alternative that applies to a different artifact type ('project-audits/v1 artifact'). The conditions selecting one tool over the other are unambiguous.

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