Skip to main content
Glama
blackwell-systems

agent-lsp

by blackwell-systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

run_tests

Executes the workspace's test suite using the detected language and returns precise failure locations, normalized for direct use in go-to-definition lookups. Optional path narrows scope.

Instructions

Run the test suite for the detected workspace language. Language-specific dispatch: go test -json ./..., cargo test --message-format=json, pytest --tb=json, npm test. Optional path param narrows scope. Test failure locations are LSP-normalized — paste directly into go_to_definition. Returns: { passed: bool, failures: [{file, line, test_name, message, location}], raw: string }. Does not require start_lsp.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
languageNo
workspace_dirYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.0
  2. Removedv0.15.0
  3. Addedv0.11.1
  4. Removedv0.10.0
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers language-specific dispatch, return format, and a notable behavioral trait (LSP-normalized failure locations). It does not mention all side effects but is sufficient for a test runner.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose, followed by key details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers core functionality, return format, and a useful feature. It could address error cases but is largely complete for a test-running tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description only clarifies 'path' (optional path narrows scope). 'language' and 'workspace_dir' are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their roles from context.

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 runs the test suite for the detected workspace language, with specific commands per language. This distinguishes it from siblings like run_build and get_tests_for_file.

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 explains that start_lsp is not required and that an optional path narrows scope, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it.

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