Skip to main content
Glama
jonathan-ponciano

tuxedo-qa

update_test

Update a test's script, name, description, schedule, or enabled state. Modify existing tests to keep them accurate without deleting and re-creating.

Instructions

Update a test — script, display name, description, schedule, or enabled state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTest file name (with or without .spec.ts)
enabledNoSet false to disable without deleting
scheduleNoRun frequency (1h for critical flows)
test_codeNoNew full Playwright test code
validatedNoSet true ONLY after a human has manually run this test and confirmed the result looks right — this is what allows the scheduler/webhook to pick it up automatically. Never set this on your own inference (e.g. "the dry-run passed so it must be fine"); ask the user first. Ignored if test_code is also being changed in this same call — a code edit always resets validated to false, since the edited version hasn't been reviewed yet.
credentialNoCredential set label to inject as credentials.* in the test (e.g. "meuapp-prod")
descriptionNoWhat the test verifies
display_nameNoHuman-readable name for the test
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., impact on running tests), authorization requirements, or mutation semantics. The parameter descriptions in the schema cover some behavioral details (e.g., validated parameter), but the main description lacks transparency on overall behavior.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key updatable fields efficiently, with no redundant or extraneous content. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the primary update targets but lacks completeness given the complexity: 8 parameters, conditional behavior (e.g., validated ignored if test_code changed), no output schema, and no information on whether updates are partial or full. Sibling tools are not addressed for contextual guidance.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, meeting baseline expectation. The main description adds limited value beyond restating some of the field names (script, display name, description, schedule, enabled state). It does not cover all parameters (e.g., validated, credential) or explain interdependencies already present 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?

Description clearly states the action 'Update a test' and lists the updatable fields (script, display name, description, schedule, enabled state). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_test, read_test, and run_until_pass, though it omits mentioning the 'validated' and 'credential' parameters from the schema, which are also updatable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_test or read_test. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., test must exist) or conditions for use, leaving the agent without context on appropriate invocation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jonathan-ponciano/sts-tools-mcp-tuxedo-qa'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server