Retrieve test execution reports from Godot game engine projects to analyze results and identify failures.
Get test report. (Compatibility tool)
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": "get_test_report"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| autoConnect | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals almost nothing. It does not disclose the report format, content structure, side effects, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies (deprecated? legacy? internal?). The cryptic parenthetical is the only behavioral hint.
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 extremely brief (two short phrases), which technically avoids verbosity, but is inappropriately underspecified for a tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag appears tacked on without explanation.
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?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to be comprehensive but is instead minimal. It does not explain what the test report contains, how to interpret it, or its relationship to the test execution workflow.
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 has 0% description coverage for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining what timeout applies to (test execution? connection?) or what 'autoConnect' connects to. Parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive but lack critical context.
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 the basic action (getting a test report) but is tautological with the tool name. It fails to specify what kind of test report (unit, integration, scene) or distinguish from siblings like 'run_test_scenario' and 'run_stress_test'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is vague and unhelpful.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'run_test_scenario' or 'assert_node_state'. No prerequisites, conditions, or workflow context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.