Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tester Agent

Tester Agent

by datb2404981
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Báo cáo kiểm thử theo dự án

tester_project_artifacts

List QA reports for a registered project so you can review saved test findings, severities, and reproduction details.

Instructions

Liệt kê báo cáo QA của một dự án được đăng ký.

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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "tester_project_artifacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoreports
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for this tool. 'Liệt kê' (enumerate) implies a read-only listing, but nothing is said about the return shape, whether results are paginated, how many reports come back, or what happens when the project is not registered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in guidance and parameter meaning rather than being purely economical.

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?

For a simple read tool with one const parameter and no output schema, the description still omits the return format, the meaning of the project identifier, and the failure mode for an unregistered project. With no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description should do considerably more.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The phrase 'của một dự án được đăng ký' adds some meaning to the project parameter (it must be a registered project), but the kind parameter, a constant defaulting to 'reports', is never mentioned, leaving an agent to guess whether it must be supplied.

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 names a specific verb and resource: listing QA reports for a given project, scoped to registered projects. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby sibling tester_project_read_artifact, so an agent must infer the list-vs-read distinction from the names alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only hint is the constraint that the project be 'registered', which implies a prerequisite but is not stated as one.

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