Execute a configured verification profile, such as test or lint, in a task workspace or repository to validate code changes and identify issues before completion.
Runs a configured verification profile (e.g. test, lint) in a task workspace or repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | Configured verification profile name | |
| task_id | No | Task ID (runs in task workspace) | |
| repository | No | Repository alias |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the profile 'runs' but does not disclose whether execution is synchronous, whether it produces artifacts or side effects, whether a task must be active, or how results are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, readable sentence that front-loads the action and includes helpful examples. It is appropriately concise, though it omits behavioral details that would make it more complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain how verification output is obtained and whether the run is asynchronous or blocking. It does neither, leaving an agent uncertain about what happens after the command is invoked.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minor value with profile examples and the workspace/repository context, but it does not clarify the relationship between task_id and repository beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Runs') on a specific resource ('configured verification profile') and gives concrete examples such as test and lint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like start_task or get_repo_status, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The examples 'e.g. test, lint' and the mention of 'task workspace or repository' give useful context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explain when to prefer task_id versus repository, nor does it point to alternatives like get_task_output for retrieving results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.