Exarp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

testing

Run test suites, analyze coverage with thresholds, suggest test cases, and validate test organization to improve software quality.

Instructions

[HINT: Testing tool. action=run|coverage|suggest|validate. Execute tests, analyze coverage, suggest test cases, or validate test structure.]

Unified testing:

action="run": Execute test suite (pytest/unittest/ctest)
action="coverage": Analyze test coverage with threshold
action="suggest": Suggest test cases based on code analysis
action="validate": Validate test organization and patterns

📊 Output: Test results, coverage analysis, test suggestions, or validation report 🔧 Side Effects: May generate coverage reports, suggestion files, or validation reports

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": "testing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`action`	No	run
`test_path`	No
`test_framework`	No	auto
`verbose`	No
`coverage`	No
`coverage_file`	No
`min_coverage`	No
`format`	No	html
`target_file`	No
`min_confidence`	No
`framework`	No
`output_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects (generating reports), output format, and hints at behavioral traits for each action. It does not mention authentication needs or potential destructive actions (like modifying files), but the side-effect information is useful.

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?

The description is well-structured with a hint line, bullet points, and emoji lines. It is relatively concise but includes some redundant emoji formatting. Every sentence adds value, but the emoji use could be considered slightly excessive for a production tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity (12 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) but an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the tool's capabilities. It covers all four actions and their typical outputs. However, it lacks details on error handling or prerequisites for each action, which would be helpful for an agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'action' parameter values (run, coverage, suggest, validate) and mentions 'test_framework' options (pytest/unittest/ctest). However, many parameters like 'verbose', 'coverage_file', and 'min_confidence' are not described, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 clearly defines the tool's purpose as a unified testing tool with four distinct actions: run, coverage, suggest, and validate. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying that it handles testing and coverage analysis, which are not covered by other tools like lint or security.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for each action, including when to use them (e.g., 'Execute test suite', 'Analyze test coverage', etc.). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, but the actions are well-defined enough for an agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.