Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
crowd-test-mcp

crowd-test-mcp

by anhhuyn411-alt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

read_report

Retrieve the latest crowd-test report with UX/QA findings and survival grade from a directory of test results.

Instructions

Return the newest crowd-test markdown report under a directory.

Defaults to ~/crowd-test-reports, where run_crowd_test writes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "read_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
report_dirNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool returns the newest markdown report, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not specify behavior when no reports exist or potential errors, but the simplicity of the tool limits gaps.

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?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences and 18 words. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds essential default context with no filler.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema (which defines return structure), the description is largely complete. It mentions the report type (markdown) and connects to run_crowd_test. A minor gap is lack of error handling details, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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 single parameter 'report_dir' is optional with default null. The description adds meaning by explaining it specifies 'under a directory' and defaults to '~/crowd-test-reports', which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema (which only shows type and default).

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 explicitly states the tool returns the newest crowd-test markdown report under a directory, with a clear verb ('return') and resource ('newest crowd-test markdown report'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list_personas, preview_mob) by focusing on reading a report.

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?

The description provides clear context by stating the default directory and noting that run_crowd_test writes there, implying this tool is used to read those reports. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient given simple siblings.

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