reflect_execute_suiteRun a Reflect test suite by providing its unique ID to validate application functionality and catch regressions in your testing workflow.
Execute a reflect suite
Toolset: Suites
Parameters:
suiteId (string) required: ID of the reflect suite to execute
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suiteId | Yes | ID of the reflect suite to execute |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.40.0v0.34.0v0.27.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'execute' a suite, which implies starting a test run and creating an execution — a side-effecting operation. This contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation, which claims the tool does not modify state. This is an annotation contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the verb, but it spends space repeating the parameter list that already exists in the schema. It is concise but not especially informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an execution tool, the description omits whether execution is asynchronous, what the return value contains, or how to track the resulting run. It also does not mention using reflect_list_suites to discover suite IDs. The single required parameter keeps complexity low, but the missing operational context is significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents suiteId with 100% coverage. The description duplicates the schema text without adding extra meaning such as where to find suiteId, acceptable formats, or default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
'Execute a reflect suite' names a specific verb and resource, making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like reflect_run_test, but the 'suite' resource is enough to identify the primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus reflect_run_test, how to monitor execution, or how to obtain a suiteId. The 'Toolset: Suites' label adds category context but no decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.