Run all Cypress tests in a project by selecting a browser and specifying the e2e project. Solves the need to execute the complete suite in one action.
Run all Cypress tests in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| browser | No | Browser to use (default: chrome) | |
| project | Yes | Which e2e project to run (adjust based on your project structure) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation with no note on side effects, async behavior, artifacts, or safety. For a test runner that may spawn long-running processes, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core function is immediately clear.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover what happens after invocation—return value, async vs blocking behavior, and relation to cypress_status/stop. It doesn't, so an agent may not know how to monitor or stop the run.
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 baseline 3 applies. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's project and browser descriptions are sufficient for selection.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Run' and resource 'all Cypress tests', clearly distinguishing it from sibling cypress_run_spec which targets a single spec. The phrase 'in a project' scopes the operation.
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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over cypress_run_spec, status, or stop. The function implies it is for executing the full suite, but it doesn't state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.