Skip to main content
Glama
jamesdsizemore

rush

by jamesdsizemore
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rush_test

Run project tests at a specified path using pytest for Python or Vitest/npm for JS/TS, returning status, findings, and summary.

Instructions

Run tests for project at . Returns {status, findings[], summary}. Engines: pytest (Python), vitest/npm (JS/TS). status='skipped' means engine not on PATH.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNo
toolNo
engineNo
statusNo
metricsNo
summaryNo
findingsNo
metadataNo
artifactsNo
duration_msNo
review_kindNo
engine_versionNo
review_providerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • 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"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return structure ({status, findings[], summary}) and the skip condition ('status=\"skipped\" means engine not on PATH'), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the test run modifies files or requires a clean environment) or any prerequisites beyond engine availability. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no wasted words. It packs the action, parameter, return format, and engine support into a compact sentence, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 tool with a single parameter and a known output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what the return looks like, and a key edge case (skipped). It does not elaborate on error handling or interpretation of findings, but these may be covered by the output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: the phrase 'for project at <path>' clarifies that the 'path' parameter refers to the project directory, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema field. It does not specify relative/absolute path format, but given the single parameter and its mention in the description, this is a minor gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run tests for project at <path>.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of engines (pytest, vitest/npm) distinguishes it from sibling tools like rush_lint or rush_security. It is not a tautology and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage (running tests) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It does indicate supported engines, which indirectly suggests it is not for other languages, but there is no direct comparison or exclusionary guidance for the many sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools