Register a test case to benchmark algorithms by specifying input data, size, type, and expected output for validation.
Register a test case for benchmarking
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Test case name | |
| input | Yes | Test input data | |
| inputSize | Yes | Input size | |
| inputType | Yes | Input type | |
| description | No | Test case description | |
| expectedOutput | No | Expected output for validation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Register', which implies a mutation, but does not disclose whether existing test cases are overwritten, what validation occurs, what side effects result, or what the tool returns. This is a significant transparency gap for a registration tool.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool whose schema already documents the parameters.
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?
The tool has six parameters, four required, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should compensate with richer context. It does not explain registration semantics, side effects, required relationships between parameters, return behavior, or when registration is valid. The description is too minimal for an agent to invoke this tool with confidence.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all six parameters individually. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline expectation of 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Register') with a clear resource ('test case') and states the purpose ('for benchmarking'). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like register_algorithm and register_implementation.
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?
The phrase 'for benchmarking' implies the tool is used when adding a test case to the benchmark suite, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.