Skip to main content
Glama
brunoboto96

SceneScout

by brunoboto96
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scout_report

Generate the final markdown report for a SceneScout UI test run, including findings, page scores, capability matrix, and untested gaps; write it to .scenescout/report.md and return a bounded summary.

Instructions

Generate the final markdown report — findings, page quality scores (worst first), role capability matrix, oracle rollup, and the GAP LEDGER (an explicit list of what was NOT tested). Writes the full document to .scenescout/report.md and returns a bounded SUMMARY (full reports exceed client token limits). Gates by level: 'minimal' needs all routes visited + ≥1 design audit; 'medium' additionally needs several routes audited; 'extensive' REFUSES while the gap ledger is non-empty — that refusal is the completeness guarantee: an extensive report only generates when nothing known is left untested. force=true overrides (only when the user capped the budget).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoGenerate even though gates are unmet (only when the user capped the budget)
levelNoWhich completion contract to enforce — match the level the run was asked formedium
reportNoWhich parts the report carries. 'both' (default): a plain-language section first — a short summary, then each problem with numbered steps, what was expected, what happened, its picture and its impact (blocks users, annoying, cosmetic), each with its technical detail folded beneath — followed by the technical report. 'qa': the plain section alone, for a tester or anyone not technical. 'dev': the technical report alone, as before the plain section existed. It applies to the files this call writes; the live view always shows both.both
historyNoHow much of the history to print. 'index' lists findings from earlier runs, and resolved ones, as a row each: id, severity, age, title. 'full' prints every one in full as before — on one project that was 1.75 MB against 113 KB, nearly half of it findings already fixed. Use 'full' when handing the document to someone who has no access to the memory.index
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.17.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / report
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "both",
+  "description": "Which parts the report carries. 'both' (default): a plain-language section first — a short summary, then each problem with numbered steps, what was expected, what happened, its picture and its impact (blocks users, annoying, cosmetic), each with its technical detail folded beneath — followed by the technical report. 'qa': the plain section alone, for a tester or anyone not technical. 'dev': the technical report alone, as before the plain section existed. It applies to the files this call writes; the live view always shows both.",
+  "enum": [
+    "both",
+    "qa",
+    "dev"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / history
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "index",
+  "description": "How much of the history to print. 'index' lists findings from earlier runs, and resolved ones, as a row each: id, severity, age, title. 'full' prints every one in full as before — on one project that was 1.75 MB against 113 KB, nearly half of it findings already fixed. Use 'full' when handing the document to someone who has no access to the memory.",
+  "enum": [
+    "index",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it names the write target (.scenescout/report.md), explains that the return is a deliberately bounded SUMMARY because full reports exceed client token limits, and discloses the refusal semantics of 'extensive' as an intentional completeness guarantee rather than an error.

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 artifact and its contents are front-loaded before the gating rules, so the key information arrives early. It is dense and long, and the level-gating sentence packs three contracts into one clause, but almost every sentence carries non-redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what comes back (a bounded summary, not the full document) and where the full artifact lands. For a 5-parameter tool with gating behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics on top: it explains that level must match the contract the run was asked for, that force is a budget-cap escape hatch, and that session enables concurrency across multiple dispatches. The report/history enums are largely restated from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact (generate the final markdown report) and enumerates the exact contents (findings, page quality scores, role capability matrix, oracle rollup, gap ledger), which cleanly separates it from siblings like scout_coverage, scout_lane_report, or scout_status that produce different outputs.

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?

Gives explicit gating conditions per level and states when force=true is legitimate ('only when the user capped the budget'), which is a genuine when-not constraint. It does not, however, point at any sibling alternative for the partial-report use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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