Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tester Agent

Tester Agent

by datb2404981
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Đọc kết quả kiểm thử theo dự án

tester_project_read_artifact

Retrieve a QA report for a specific project by name, returning findings, evidence, severities, and reproduction steps for developer review.

Instructions

Đọc báo cáo QA của dự án cụ thể.

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>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "tester_project_read_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
nameYes
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies a read operation. It says nothing about whether the project must already exist, what happens when the named report is missing, whether access is scoped or permissioned, or what the returned content looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero structured behavioral hints.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline; the sentence is not front-loaded with any actionable detail beyond the resource.

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?

Three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations mean the description should explain identifiers, return content, and error conditions. It addresses none of these, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call without guessing what 'name' expects.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only covers the 'project' parameter implicitly ('của dự án cụ thể'). The 'name' parameter – which report to fetch – is completely unexplained in both schema and description, and 'kind' is only self-documented by its const value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb and resource ('Đọc báo cáo QA của dự án cụ thể' – read the QA report of a specific project), which is more specific than the bare name 'read_artifact'. However, it never explains what an 'artifact' is in this context (the schema's kind is fixed to 'reports') and gives no hint of how it differs from the sibling tester_project_artifacts, so an agent cannot cleanly separate the two.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tester_project_artifacts, no mention of prerequisites (does the project need to be registered first via tester_register_project?), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything from the 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