Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
qa-mcp

qa-mcp

by davidpoza
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

autoCompleteRfCu

Completes requirements, use cases, and steps in rf-cu.md files to match the specified format.

Instructions

Completa RF/CU/pasos en rf-cu.md según formato requerido.

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": "autoCompleteRfCu"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configPathNo
requirementsPathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions completing a file, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrites, authorization needs) or details on the operation's impact.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no superfluous content, but it is too brief and sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description fails to provide sufficient context about the expected input format, output, or behavioral implications. It leaves many gaps for an AI agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters configPath and requirementsPath. No parameter information is provided, leaving the AI without guidance on input meanings.

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 states it completes RF/CU/pasos in rf-cu.md, specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like export or test generation, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of when to invoke autoCompleteRfCu is missing.

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