Skip to main content
Glama
concurrence-hq

forge-mcp

by concurrence-hq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

forge_unit_test_set_update

Update an existing unit test set by changing only the fields you provide, such as name, description, tags, or included test runs.

Instructions

Update a unit test set. Only provided fields are changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoUpdated name
tagsNoTags (alphanumeric keys and values, no hyphens or special characters)
org_idNoOrg ID (uses active org if omitted)
descriptionNoUpdated description
unit_test_runsNoUnit test runs included in this set
unit_test_set_idYesThe unit test set ID to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.14
    • removedInput schema / properties / description / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.13

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the important PATCH-like behavior that omitted fields are left unchanged. However, it does not clarify whether nested values like tags or unit_test_runs are merged or replaced, what happens if the test set does not exist, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a compact two-sentence definition with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical partial-update behavior follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having six parameters, including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely minimal. It leaves out expected return behavior, semantics for replacing versus merging nested collections, error handling, and permissions. An agent would need to open every parameter schema and still would not know the full update behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The statement 'Only provided fields are changed' adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics beyond the schema, telling the agent that all parameters are effectively optional and that omitted fields retain their existing values. This is useful context that the schema alone does not convey.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('unit test set'), so the agent immediately knows what the tool does. The additional sentence 'Only provided fields are changed' distinguishes this as a partial-update operation versus the sibling create tool and any full-replacement update tools. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when modifying an existing unit test set, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over forge_unit_test_set_create or other update variants. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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