Skip to main content
Glama

estimate_qa_effort

Estimate QA effort deterministically from project intake fields using PERT, complexity multipliers, team capacity, and confidence scores; returns JSON with validation errors by field.

Instructions

Deterministic QA effort estimate (PERT + complexity multipliers + team capacity + confidence score) — no LLM narrative; write your own from these numbers. Fields mirror the app's project-intake dialogue and are validated with the same rules; a validation failure returns {"error": "validation", "fields": {field: message}}, never a crash; all eleven fields are needed, and a missing or empty one is reported by name in that same shape Success returns the full EstimationData as JSON (baseline, multipliers, pert_activities, capacity, risk_buffer_days, final_effort_min/max, confidence_level/confidence_score, confidence_note, data_quality_score out of data_quality_max=20). Negative team sizes and negative or zero timelines are rejected with a validation error; decimal team sizes ("2.5") are rounded half up to a whole headcount with a warning. capacity_gap = available_person_days - pert_total_expected, so POSITIVE is a surplus and NEGATIVE a deficit; capacity_status ("surplus"/"deficit"/"balanced") and capacity_note state this unambiguously. methodology_note is set only when the methodology does not change the numbers (it is then a label only).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timelineNo
tech_stackNo
known_risksNo
methodologyNo
project_nameNo
project_typeNo
team_qa_sizeNo
team_dev_sizeNo
additional_contextNo
existing_automationNo
project_descriptionNo
compliance_requirementsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed12 schema fields changedv3.9.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / compliance_requirements / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / existing_automation / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / known_risks / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / methodology / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_description / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_name / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_type / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / team_dev_size / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / team_qa_size / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / tech_stack / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / timeline / default
      Added value: +""
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
      -  "project_name",
      -  "project_description",
      -  "project_type",
      -  "tech_stack",
      -  "team_qa_size",
      -  "team_dev_size",
      -  "timeline",
      -  "methodology",
      -  "known_risks",
      -  "existing_automation",
      -  "compliance_requirements"
      -]
  2. First observedv3.1.4

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it specifies the validation error shape ({"error": "validation", "fields": {...}}), guarantees no crash, rejects negative team sizes and non-positive timelines, rounds decimal headcounts half up with a warning, and defines the sign of capacity_gap and when methodology_note is a label only. That is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond anything structured.

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?

Front-loaded well with the deterministic-method summary, but the body is a dense run-on block (a missing period causes 'in that same shape Success returns...' to merge two ideas) and the capacity sign convention is explained twice. The content earns its place; the presentation does not.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a twelve-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (baseline, multipliers, pert_activities, capacity, confidence_score, data_quality_score) and the error contract. What remains missing is input-side completeness: acceptable value formats for the many string fields and the eleven-vs-twelve field discrepancy.

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 coverage is 0% across twelve bare string fields, and the description only adds semantics for three of them (team_qa_size/team_dev_size, timeline) plus the field-mirrors-intake framing for the rest. Fields like project_type, methodology, existing_automation and compliance_requirements get no hint of accepted values or formats, and the 'all eleven fields' count contradicts the twelve properties in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and method: 'Deterministic QA effort estimate (PERT + complexity multipliers + team capacity + confidence score)'. It also disambiguates itself from narrative-generating behavior ('no LLM narrative; write your own from these numbers'), making its role clear, though no sibling tool is named explicitly.

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?

It signals how to consume the output ('write your own from these numbers') and states that all fields are needed, but never says when to choose this over assess_qa_maturity or analyze_test_results, nor what situations make an estimate inappropriate. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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