Argus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Testing Goal Coverage

coverage_update

Update related QA coverage goals atomically, freeze prior evidence when switching groups, and require observed evidence before marking exercised or blocked.

Instructions

Update one goal or related goals atomically. Mark in_progress before their shared journey; switching groups freezes prior evidence, not status. exercised/blocked requires observed evidence, not an assumed pass.

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": {
      "goal": "<goal>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "coverage_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`evidence`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`run_id`	Yes
`stages`	No
`status`	Yes
`recovery`	No
`operation`	Yes
`error_code`	Yes
`session_state`	Yes
`schema_version`	No
`progress_omitted`	No
`progress_delivery_failed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.10.0Oct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / evidence / title
```
Removed value: -"Evidence"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / goal / title
```
Removed value: -"Goal"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / status / title
```
Removed value: -"Status"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"coverage_updateArguments"
```
Changed12 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / title
```
Removed value: -"Data"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / error_code / title
```
Removed value: -"Error Code"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / operation / title
```
Removed value: -"Operation"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / progress_delivery_failed / title
```
Removed value: -"Progress Delivery Failed"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / progress_omitted / title
```
Removed value: -"Progress Omitted"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / recovery / title
```
Removed value: -"Recovery"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / run_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Run Id"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / schema_version / title
```
Removed value: -"Schema Version"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / session_state / title
```
Removed value: -"Session State"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / stages / title
```
Removed value: -"Stages"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / status / title
```
Removed value: -"Status"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"AgentResult"
```
Addedv0.5.2Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: group updates are atomic, and switching groups freezes prior evidence while leaving status untouched — a side effect an agent could not infer from the schema. It is still opaque about what 'freezing' concretely does to evidence and whether it is reversible.

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?

Two dense sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries semantic weight. Some phrasing ('their shared journey') is terse to the point of ambiguity, which costs a point.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema covers return values and the annotations cover safety, so the description's job is mainly the parameter contract. That contract is only partially filled in: the full set of valid `status` values and the expected format of `goal` identifiers are absent, which is a real gap for a mutation tool with 0% schema coverage.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden and mostly does: 'one goal or related goals' explains why `goal` accepts a string or array, and the mention of in_progress/exercised/blocked partially enumerates a `status` parameter that has no enum in the schema. It is docked because those status values are illustrative rather than exhaustive and the `evidence` parameter's format is only hinted at ('observed evidence').

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 gives a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('one goal or related goals') plus a mode ('atomically'), which is enough to distinguish it from every sibling, none of which touch goal coverage. It falls short of 5 because the concept of a 'goal' and what 'coverage' means are never grounded for an agent that has not seen this domain before.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Mark in_progress before their shared journey' and 'exercised/blocked requires observed evidence' tell the agent the preconditions for specific status transitions. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call coverage_update versus record_observation, record_bug, or test_action, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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