Skip to main content
Glama
brunoboto96

SceneScout

by brunoboto96
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scout_finding

Record structured UI testing findings—bugs, UX issues, or improvements—with deduplication, action-trace repro, and visual evidence for reports.

Instructions

Record a structured finding (bug, UX issue, or improvement). Deduplicates across runs; automatically captures the recent action trace as the repro, and a picture of what it is about (the element ref names, else the viewport), kept for report.html and returned in this result as an image. Use for anything worth reporting: crashes, oracle violations you confirmed, dead ends, confusing UX, permission leaks, missing testids — and design-audit improvement opportunities (ux-polish) with their concrete measurements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoThe ref, from the latest scout_snapshot, of the element the finding is about. Its picture (the element plus a margin) is kept with the finding and shown in report.html. Omit it and the picture is the viewport.
titleYesOne-line summary of the defect
detailYesWhat happened, what was expected, and the evidence
sessionNoTarget this session directly instead of the active one — pass it explicitly when dispatching to MULTIPLE sessions in one turn (e.g. two scout_click calls with different `session`), which then run CONCURRENTLY rather than queueing. Omit for single-session sequential use.
categoryYesPick the closest — use 'other' only when nothing fits
evidenceNoCanonical machine signature for dedup, e.g. 'GET /api/reports/dashboard 403' or 'widget dashboard-summary-widget shows 0'. Same bug re-found later should produce the same string.
severityYes
conventionNoOnly for a WORTH-A-LOOK finding: the observation is real, and it is a defect only under a convention of this project you cannot see. Name that convention, e.g. 'a 4px spacing scale' or 'test ids on every control'. The report lists it under "Worth a look", apart from the defects, and does not count it as one. Not for "I could not tell": leave that unfiled or look closer. Omit for a defect.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.17.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The ref, from the latest scout_snapshot, of the element the finding is about. Its picture (the element plus a margin) is kept with the finding and shown in report.html. Omit it and the picture is the viewport.",
+  "maxLength": 20,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv3.14.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / convention
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only for a WORTH-A-LOOK finding: the observation is real, and it is a defect only under a convention of this project you cannot see. Name that convention, e.g. 'a 4px spacing scale' or 'test ids on every control'. The report lists it under \"Worth a look\", apart from the defects, and does not count it as one. Not for \"I could not tell\": leave that unfiled or look closer. Omit for a defect.",
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses automatic deduplication across runs, automatic capture of the recent action trace as the repro, and automatic capture of a picture (element `ref` or viewport) that is persisted for report.html and returned as an image. These are real side effects an agent should know about, though failure modes and any permission requirements are not covered.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the purpose, then behavior, then usage scope, and every clause carries information (dedup, repro capture, image, category examples). The heavy em-dash listing makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideally structured definition.

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 an 8-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, return of the captured image, and filing conventions. It is close to complete; only edge details like severity semantics and error behavior are left to the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is already 88%, so the schema does most of the work, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it explains the `convention` field's special role (routed to a "Worth a look" section and not counted as a defect) and reinforces the `ref`/picture behavior. That is meaningful added value above the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ("Record a structured finding") and enumerates what qualifies (crashes, UX issues, improvements), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool (e.g. scout_note) to disambiguate where else one might file an observation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Use for anything worth reporting" followed by a concrete list of triggers (crashes, confirmed oracle violations, dead ends, confusing UX, permission leaks, missing testids, ux-polish) gives strong when-to-use guidance. There is also a when-not signal for the `convention` field ("Not for 'I could not tell'"), but no explicit alternative tool is named for cases this tool should not handle.

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