rush

by jamesdsizemore

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

rush_e2e

Validate full user flows by running configured E2E tests in a browser, ensuring critical paths work as expected.

Instructions

Run configured E2E tests only with --allow-browser.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`options`	Yes
`allow_slow`	No
`allow_build`	No
`allow_browser`	No
`allow_network`	No
`allow_download`	No
`allow_cache_write`	No
`allow_artifact_write`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No
`tool`	No
`engine`	No
`status`	No
`metrics`	No
`summary`	No
`findings`	No
`metadata`	No
`artifacts`	No
`duration_ms`	No
`review_kind`	No
`engine_version`	No
`review_provider`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2Sep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / metrics / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "number"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.3.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one gate — the run requires allow_browser — but says nothing about side effects of E2E runs (launching a browser, writing files, network usage), what happens if the gate is false, or why the other six allow_* permission flags exist. For a tool built around permission-style flags, 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence with zero filler, and the verb and resource are front-loaded. However, 'only with --allow-browser' is terse to the point of possible confusion — an agent could mistake it for a shell flag rather than the JSON parameter allow_browser.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description is still inadequate for a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation. It fails to explain the gating model behind the allow_* flags, the role of path and options, or when to prefer a sibling tool, leaving an agent to guess on most of the input surface.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It adds meaning to exactly one of nine parameters (allow_browser, and only in CLI notation), while path, options, and the other six allow_* booleans receive no semantic explanation at all. It does not meet the burden set by a 0%-coverage 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Run configured E2E tests.' The qualifier 'only with --allow-browser' adds a distinguishing condition. It partially separates this from siblings like rush_test by naming E2E tests explicitly, but it does not fully differentiate it from other test-adjacent tools (rush_snapshot, rush_visual) and the '--allow-browser' phrasing is cryptic.

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 when to use the tool — when configured E2E tests must be run — and states a precondition (pass --allow-browser). However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no alternative routing such as 'for unit tests use rush_test', and no explanation of what happens when the browser gate is not satisfied.

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

Deploy Server