Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sl-test

sl-test

by SampsonKY
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

swift_package_test

Execute Swift Package tests using swift test command. Specify package path, test product, filters, build configuration, parallel execution, code coverage, and @main support options.

Instructions

Runs tests for a Swift Package with swift test

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "packagePath": "<packagePath>"
    },
    "name": "swift_package_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packagePathYesPath to the Swift package root (Required)
testProductNoOptional specific test product to run
filterNoFilter tests by name (regex pattern)
configurationNoBuild configuration: 'debug' (default) or 'release'
parallelNoRun tests in parallel (default: true)
showCodecovNoShow code coverage (default: false)
parseAsLibraryNoAdd -parse-as-library flag for @main support (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'swift test' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like execution time, side effects (e.g., modifies build artifacts), error handling, or output format. For a test-running tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (running tests with 7 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., test results, exit codes) or critical behavioral aspects, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Runs tests for a Swift Package with swift test' clearly states the action (runs tests) and target (Swift Package), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like swift_package_build or swift_package_run. It lacks specificity about what kind of tests or what 'swift test' entails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for building, running, and managing Swift packages (e.g., swift_package_build, swift_package_run), the description offers no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools