qa-workflow
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| wait_for_bug_reportD | – |
| complete_bugD | – |
| get_queue_statusD | – |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Tool names suggest distinct actions: completing a bug, checking queue status, and waiting for a bug report. Without descriptions, there is slight ambiguity between 'complete_bug' and 'wait_for_bug_report' but they appear to target different stages.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern ('complete_bug', 'get_queue_status'), but 'wait_for_bug_report' uses a multi-word verb phrase, breaking consistency. The pattern is mostly predictable but not uniform.
Three tools is on the low end but could be appropriate for a highly focused workflow (e.g., a queue-based bug system). It earns its place if the domain is narrow, but feels slightly thin for a general QA workflow.
The surface lacks basic operations like creating, listing, or updating bugs, which are common in QA workflows. The set feels incomplete, covering only end actions and status checks.