Skip to main content
Glama
SmartBear

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Contract Testing: Matrix

contract-testing_matrix
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a contract verification matrix to view consumer-provider version compatibility, detect verification failures, and support deployment decisions.

Instructions

Retrieve the comprehensive contract verification matrix that shows the relationship between consumer and provider versions, their associated pact files, and verification results stored in the Pact Broker or Pactflow. The matrix provides detailed visibility into which consumer and provider versions have been successfully verified against each other, and highlights failures with detailed information about the cause.

Toolset: Matrix

Parameters:

  • latestby (string): This property removes the rows for the overridden pacts/verifications from the results. The options are cvp (show only the latest row for each consumer version and provider) and cvpv (show only the latest row each consumer version and provider version). For a can-i-deploy query with one selector, it should be set to cvp. For a can-i-deploy query with two selectors, it should be set to cvpv.

  • limit (number): The limit on the number of results to return (1-1000, default: 100) (default: 100)

  • q (array) required

Use Cases: 1. Quickly identify which consumer and provider version combinations have passed or failed verification. 2. Diagnose and investigate why a particular consumer-provider verification failed. 3. Visualize the overall contract compatibility across two pacticipants / services. 4. Perform advanced queries using selectors to understand compatibility within specific branches, environments, or version ranges. 5. Support informed deployment decisions by answering 'can I deploy version X of this service to production?' 6. Expose contract verification details to non-frequent API users in a more accessible format.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes
limitNoThe limit on the number of results to return (1-1000, default: 100)
latestbyNoThis property removes the rows for the overridden pacts/verifications from the results. The options are cvp (show only the latest row for each consumer version and provider) and cvpv (show only the latest row each consumer version and provider version). For a can-i-deploy query with one selector, it should be set to cvp. For a can-i-deploy query with two selectors, it should be set to cvpv.

Tool Definition Quality

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal extra behavioral insight beyond stating it retrieves data and highlights failures. Given annotations carry the safety profile, the description's incremental value is low.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than necessary due to the extensive use case list. While structured with clear sections, some sentences could be streamlined without losing meaning. It is adequate but not exceptionally concise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and use cases comprehensively. Even without an output schema, it explains what the matrix shows. No critical gaps impede understanding or usage.

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?

The schema has high description coverage (67%+). The description adds extra context for the 'latestby' parameter with specific can-i-deploy usage examples, which goes beyond the schema's description. This provides meaningful guidance for parameter selection.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'comprehensive contract verification matrix'. It further elaborates with use cases and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's part of the 'Matrix' toolset.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description includes a list of 6 use cases, offering some guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like contract-testing_can_i_deploy, which would improve clarity.

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/SmartBear/smartbear-mcp'

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