Skip to main content
Glama

ck_regression_result

Capture regression-test outcomes from external CI/CD engines and store them as evidence for release-readiness checks. Links results to a session and commit, closing the proof loop.

Instructions

Record external regression-test evidence from CI/CD systems (Bug0, Passmark, custom runners) so proof bundles and release-readiness checks account for external validation. Write operation — creates a DB record. Returns the recorded result ID. Required: session_id, engine (name of the test system), flow_name (test suite or flow identifier), outcome (passed/failed/flaky/skipped). Optional: commit_sha to link results to a specific revision, environment (ci/staging/production), external_run_id for cross-referencing the originating system, evidence for a structured payload. Use after an external test run to close the proof loop before calling ck_review_submit for a completion review. Retrieve past results with ck_memory_search using record_type: regression.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
engineYesName of the external regression test engine (e.g., Bug0, Passmark).
outcomeYesResult classification of the operation.
summaryNoBrief human-readable summary of the record.
task_idNoTask identifier within the session for scoped operations.
evidenceNoStructured evidence payload from the external system.
metadataNo
flow_nameYesName of the regression test flow or test suite.
commit_shaNoGit commit SHA associated with the test run.
session_idYesUnique session identifier for correlating findings, proofs, budget, and audit trail.
environmentNoExecution environment label (e.g., production, staging, ci).
external_run_idNoExternal system run identifier for cross-referencing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
engineNo
outcomeNo
recordedNo
flow_nameNo
result_idNo
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false). Description confirms write operation and return of an ID. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions) are disclosed beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Approximately 7 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Each sentence adds value—purpose, return, parameters, usage context, retrieval alternative. No redundant phrasing.

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 tool with 11 parameters, 4 required, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, workflow integration, and retrieval. The output schema exists but its details are not described; however, the description mentions the return value.

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 91%, so baseline is 3. Description lists required and some optional parameters with minimal elaboration (e.g., 'commit_sha to link results to a specific revision'). Does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool records external regression-test evidence and that it is a write operation creating a DB record, linking to proof bundles and release-readiness. It distinguishes its role by mentioning related tools (ck_review_submit, ck_memory_search) but does not explicitly differentiate from all 50+ siblings.

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?

Explicit guidance to use after an external test run and before ck_review_submit, plus retrieving past results via ck_memory_search. Does not specify when not to use, but context is clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aryaminus/controlkeel'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server