Skip to main content
Glama
Yan-Vi

easy-spec-mcp

by Yan-Vi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_suites

List all suite entries in a project, showing each saved run's id, folder path, target scenario, and independent parameters to help you review configured test runs.

Instructions

List every suite entry in a project: id, folder path, which scenario it points at (plus that scenario's own name, for convenience), and its own saved run params (datasetTokens/useYaml/yaml, same shape add_flow_to_scenario stores -- absent means the scenario's own default dataset). A suite entry is a SAVED RUN, not a bare reference -- the same scenarioId can appear more than once, at different paths or even the same one, each with its own independent params.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoPath to the project root (same folder the side panel connects to). Defaults to the EASYSPEC_PROJECT environment variable if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It accurately describes the read-only nature of listing entries and clarifies the semantics of suite entries (saved runs with independent params). However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, though this is implied by the verb 'list'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences and generally efficient. The first sentence lists returned fields, and the second clarifies the nature of suite entries. While slightly wordy with parenthetical explanations, the information is relevant and well-organized without unnecessary repetition.

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 that there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns, including field names and the semantic meaning of suite entries. It covers all necessary details for a caller to understand the expected output and behavior, making it complete for its low complexity.

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?

The sole parameter 'project' is described in the schema with its type and default value. The tool description references 'a project' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: listing suite entries in a project, and specifies the exact fields returned (id, folder path, scenario reference, and saved run params). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing that suite entries are saved runs rather than bare references, which is a unique aspect.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_scenarios or list_flows. The distinction from bare references is implicit but no direct comparative usage advice is given.

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