Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tester Agent

Tester Agent

by datb2404981
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Danh sách dự án web

tester_projects

Lists registered projects with their URLs and testing permissions, enabling a connected model to identify which projects can be tested.

Instructions

Liệt kê dự án đã đăng ký, URL và quyền kiểm thử.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tester_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The verb "Liệt kê" signals a read-only enumeration, and it usefully discloses the payload fields (URL, testing permissions) in the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about whether all projects are returned, pagination, permissions required to see them, or result ordering.

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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficient, though at this length it could have afforded one more clause on scope without becoming bloated.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, naming the returned fields partially compensates. However, the agent still cannot tell from the definition whether results are scoped, complete, or paginated, which matters for a listing tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input object.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Liệt kê dự án đã đăng ký" (list registered projects), and adds what the listing contains (URL and testing permissions). It is clearly distinct from tester_register_project by verb, but the description never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts the two, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before tester_test_web or tester_browser_start, but the description never says so.

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