Skip to main content
Glama
julianbei

ARNO

by julianbei
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

arno.run_tests

Rerun a failing test, a test file, or changed files' tests, then wait for pass/fail and the first failure. For a full suite, set scope=all.

Instructions

Rerun a failing test, a test file, or changed files' tests; waits for pass/fail and the first failure. Full suite: check kind tests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoTest file to run, for scope=file (Go: its package). With scope=test, limits the name filter to this file.
rootNoWorktree for this call. Default: the one set with workspace, else the start tree.
testNoTest name, for scope=test: exact in Go, the runner's name filter elsewhere (jest/vitest -t, ava --match, pytest -k, cargo test <name>).
waitNoWait for the result (default true). False returns a job ID to poll.
scopeNoall (default), file, test or changed.
timeoutSecondsNoBound on the wait (default 90, max 300).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.0.17
    • changedInput schema / properties / root / description
      Previous value: -"Worktree of this repository to act in. Defaults to the session's workspace."New value: +"Worktree for this call. Default: the one set with workspace, else the start tree."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.0.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / root
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Worktree of this repository to act in. Defaults to the session's workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv0.0.12

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It usefully discloses that the call blocks and returns pass/fail plus the first failure, but says nothing about auth needs, cost, or how partial failures surface. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two compact clauses with zero filler: the action and scopes come first, the sibling routing last. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly mentions the returned pass/fail and first-failure signal, and the schema covers wait/job-ID polling and timeout bounds. It is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior on partial or errored runs is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains file, root, test, wait, scope, and timeoutSeconds in detail (including runner-specific name filters). The description only loosely maps its three rerun scopes onto the scope parameter, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 (rerun) and three concrete scopes (a failing test, a test file, changed files' tests), so the agent knows exactly what it executes. It also distinguishes itself from the full-suite path by pointing to the 'check kind tests' sibling, though that routing phrase is compressed and slightly cryptic.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear selection criteria for the rerun cases and an explicit alternative for the excluded case (full suite goes to arno.check). It stops short of stating prerequisites or when a rerun is inappropriate (e.g., no prior failure exists).

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