ateam-mcp

ateam_test_pipeline

Test a skill's intent detection and planning pipeline without executing tools. Returns intent classification, first planned action, and timing to debug misclassification or wrong planning.

Instructions

Test the decision pipeline (intent detection → planning) for a skill WITHOUT executing tools. Returns intent classification, first planned action, and timing. Use this to debug why a skill classifies intent incorrectly or plans the wrong action.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "solution_id": "<solution_id>",
      "skill_id": "<skill_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "ateam_test_pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`solution_id`	Yes	The solution ID
`skill_id`	Yes	The skill ID to test
`message`	Yes	The test message to classify and plan for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.52May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it runs a dry-run (doesn't execute tools), what it returns (intent classification, first planned action, timing), and a debugging use case. It could add more about error conditions, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by outputs and use case. No filler—every word contributes.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, non-execution, return values, and the debugging scenario. It doesn't explain edge cases or what 'timing' refers to, but the essential context is present.

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 schema has 100% coverage with self-descriptive parameters (message, skill_id, solution_id). The description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Test' with a clear resource 'decision pipeline (intent detection → planning)' and explicitly notes it does NOT execute tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like ateam_test_skill or ateam_test_connector.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this to debug why a skill classifies intent incorrectly or plans the wrong action' and the 'WITHOUT executing tools' provides a when-not. However, it does not name an alternative tool for execution testing, so it stops short of a full comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server