Repo Test Architect

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Explain Audit Target

explain_target

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explains evidence, risk, testability, and recommendations for one audit target; returns target-explanation/v1 without rescanning the repo or running tests.

Instructions

Explain the evidence, risk, testability, and recommendation for one target in an existing audit/v1 artifact. Use this after audit_repo or audit_projects when one target needs detail beyond the audit summary. Returns target-explanation/v1 without rescanning the repository, executing tests, or writing 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.
`targetId`	Yes	Exact stable id from an audit target in untestedCandidates, coveredButRisky, recommended, or skipped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`risk`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`signals`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`targetId`	Yes
`rationale`	Yes
`testLevel`	Yes
`testability`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes
`recommendation`	Yes
`maintenanceCost`	Yes
`existingTestPaths`	Yes
`riskReductionScore`	Yes
`existingTestEvidence`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 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."

changedInput schema / properties / targetId / description

Previous value: -"Stable audit target id."New value: +"Exact stable id from an audit target in untestedCandidates, coveredButRisky, recommended, or skipped."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$id": "https://repo-test-architect.local/schemas/target-explanation-v1.schema.json",
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "category": {
+      "enum": [
+        "untestedCandidates",
+        "coveredButRisky",
+        "skipped"
+      ]
+    },
+    "existingTestEvidence": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "kind": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "strength": {
+            "enum": [
+              "naming",
+              "direct",
+              "referenced",
+              "indirect"
+            ]
+          },
+          "testPath": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "usage": {
+            "enum": [
+              "called",
+              "asserted"
+            ]
+          },
+          "viaUsage": {
+            "enum": [
+              "called",
+              "asserted"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "testPath",
+          "kind",
+          "strength"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "existingTestPaths": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maintenanceCost": {
+      "maximum": 10,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "path": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rationale": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "recommendation": {
+      "enum": [
+        "test",
+        "defer"
+      ]
+    },
+    "risk": {
+      "enum": [
+        "low",
+        "medium",
+        "high"
+      ]
+    },
+    "riskReductionScore": {
+      "maximum": 10,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "schemaVersion": {
+      "const": "target-explanation/v1"
+    },
+    "signals": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "target": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "targetId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "testLevel": {
+      "enum": [
+        "unit",
+        "integration",
+        "component",
+        "ui",
+        "none"
+      ]
+    },
+    "testability": {
+      "enum": [
+        "low",
+        "medium",
+        "high"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schemaVersion",
+    "targetId",
+    "target",
+    "path",
+    "category",
+    "kind",
+    "recommendation",
+    "testLevel",
+    "risk",
+    "testability",
+    "riskReductionScore",
+    "maintenanceCost",
+    "signals",
+    "rationale",
+    "existingTestPaths"
+  ],
+  "title": "Repo Test Architect Target Explanation",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, but the description adds real value by stating it does not rescan the repository, execute tests, or write files, and by naming the returned artifact type (target-explanation/v1).

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, usage condition, and behavioral constraints/return type, with the core purpose front-loaded and 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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: prerequisites, scope, side-effect exclusions, and the return artifact type.

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% and both parameters are thoroughly documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the audit is an existing artifact and that only one target is explained, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource - explaining evidence, risk, testability and recommendation for one target in an existing audit/v1 artifact - and differentiates itself from siblings by positioning against audit summaries.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly names the prerequisite tools (audit_repo, audit_projects) and the condition that selects this tool: when one target needs detail beyond the audit summary. No explicit when-not or sibling exclusions such as summarize_project_audits, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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