Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rstudio-mcp-server

rstudio-mcp-server

by lerlerchan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

r_test_package

Run R package tests using devtools::test() or testthat to support a test-driven development workflow. Filter tests with a regex pattern.

Instructions

Run tests for an R package using devtools::test() or testthat. Great for TDD workflow.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "package_path": "<package_path>"
    },
    "name": "r_test_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterNoOptional test filter pattern (regex)
package_pathYesPath to the R package directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using devtools::test() or testthat but does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether it installs dependencies or runs in a sandboxed environment. Lacks detail on error behavior or performance implications.

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 a single sentence plus a tagline, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the low complexity (two simple parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, reducing completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the two parameters.

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 clearly states it runs tests for an R package using devtools::test() or testthat, and mentions TDD workflow. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling r_test_file tool, which runs tests for a single file.

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 phrase 'Great for TDD workflow' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison with alternatives like r_test_file.

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