Execute pytest or npm test suites to verify project code changes and catch failures early. Provide a project path with optional scope and extra arguments.
Run tests in project (pytest for Python, npm test for Node).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | ||
| extra_args | No | ||
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Only readOnlyHint=false is provided, so the description should carry most of the burden. It adds the framework mapping (pytest vs npm test), which is useful, but says nothing about runtime, failure behavior, exit codes, or whether side effects (build artifacts, test DBs) occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. It is tight, though the parenthetical example format is the only structure present and there is no room for the missing usage or parameter detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but two of three parameters remain undocumented and there is no guidance on when to choose this over run_command. For a 3-param execution tool this leaves notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for 3 parameters. The description only implicitly covers project_path ('in project'); scope and extra_args are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess their formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Run tests') and even names the underlying commands per ecosystem (pytest, npm test), which an agent can act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling run_command, which can also execute tests, so sibling differentiation is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of run_command as the generic alternative. The agent must infer that this tool is preferred over run_command for test execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.