run_testsExecutes a configured test suite, optionally filtered, and returns pass/fail counts plus failing tests for quick triage.
Run a configured test suite (optionally filtered) and return pass/fail counts and the failing tests. Use get_failure_details next to dig into a specific failure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suite | Yes | Suite name from list_test_suites | |
| filter | No | Optional test name filter, passed with the suite grep flag |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that it executes a pre-configured suite and returns counts plus failing test names. However, it says nothing about execution cost/latency, timeouts, or whether running a suite has side effects, which matters for a test-execution tool.
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?
Two tightly written sentences, with the primary action and output front-loaded and the alternative-routing hint trailing. Nothing redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields. Parameters are fully covered by the schema. Only the lack of execution-behavior detail (duration, failure semantics) keeps it from a 5.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (including the grep-flag behavior of filter). The description only restates that the suite is 'configured' and can be 'optionally filtered', adding little beyond the schema baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (run) and resource (a configured test suite), plus the output shape (pass/fail counts and failing tests). It also distinguishes itself from get_failure_details, so an agent can route without opening a schema.
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?
Explicitly notes the optional filter and names the follow-up tool (get_failure_details) for drilling into a specific failure. The when-to-use-this-vs-alternative condition is spelled out clearly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.