Skip to main content
Glama
Yan-Vi

easy-spec-mcp

by Yan-Vi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

live_list_suite_runs

List suite runs from the connected side panel, showing current and historical runs with per-scenario status and attempt counts.

Instructions

Lists suite runs on the connected side panel: current (still running) and history (finished/cancelled this session, most recent first, capped at 30). Each entry has the overall status and a per-scenario breakdown (status: pending/running/passed/flaky/failed, attempts count). Safe to poll repeatedly.

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.
sessionNoWhich connected side panel to target, by its connection id (see live_status) -- only needed when more than one side panel is connected to the same project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.4

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only intent through 'Lists' and 'Safe to poll repeatedly', and describes result limits and statuses, providing reasonable transparency about behavior.

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?

Two focused sentences front-load the action and scope, then pack useful output details (statuses, attempts count, cap) without redundancy. Highly concise and well structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating output categories, statuses, and attempt counts. It covers the essential information a caller needs, though a formal return shape is not described.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The interaction between project and session is not further clarified, but this is a minor gap.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'suite runs', scoped to the connected side panel. Distinguishes current versus history and mentions the per-scenario breakdown, which differentiates it from related live_* tools like live_list_runs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says it is safe to poll repeatedly and scopes the data to the current session and side panel. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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