Skip to main content
Glama
dpdanpittman

mcp-server-quint

by dpdanpittman

quint_test

Execute named test definitions from Quint specifications to verify formal models. Returns pass/fail results with detailed failure information for each test.

Instructions

Run named test definitions (run statements) from a Quint spec. Returns pass/fail for each test with failure details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNoQuint specification source code (.qnt content)
file_pathNoPath to a .qnt file on disk
matchNoRegex to filter test names (e.g. "transfer" to run only tests matching "transfer")

Implementation Reference

  • Registration and handler implementation for the quint_test tool.
    server.tool(
      "quint_test",
      "Run named test definitions (run statements) from a Quint spec. Returns pass/fail for each test with failure details.",
      {
        ...sourceSchema,
        match: z
          .string()
          .optional()
          .describe(
            'Regex to filter test names (e.g. "transfer" to run only tests matching "transfer")',
          ),
      },
      async ({ source, file_path, match }) => {
        try {
          const result = await runWithSource(source, file_path, (f) => {
            const args = ["test"];
            if (match) args.push(`--match=${match}`);
            args.push(f);
            return args;
          });
          return formatResult(result);
        } catch (err) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text", text: `Error: ${err.message}` }],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

Does 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 mentions the return format (pass/fail with failure details) but does not cover critical aspects such as error handling, execution environment, performance characteristics, or whether it modifies state. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides basic purpose and output details but is incomplete for a tool that executes tests. It does not address error cases, input validation, or the format of failure details, which are important for an agent to use it correctly in various scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (source, file_path, match) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as parameter interactions or examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the specific action ('Run named test definitions'), resource ('from a Quint spec'), and outcome ('Returns pass/fail for each test with failure details'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like quint_parse or quint_typecheck by focusing on test execution rather than parsing, type-checking, or verification.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for running tests from Quint specs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like quint_verify (which might verify properties) or quint_run (which might execute general statements). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dpdanpittman/mcp-server-quint'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server