lxDIG MCP

test_categorize

Categorize test files by their type to identify unit, integration, or end-to-end tests, improving organization and debugging.

Instructions

Categorize tests by type

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "test_categorize"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`testFiles`	No	Test files to categorize

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies tests, or returns a categorization. Essential behavioral traits are missing, making it hard for an agent to understand side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence and front-loaded, but it is too brief to be minimally adequate. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of informativeness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the presence of multiple sibling tools with similar names, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what categorization entails or how the output is structured, leaving the agent unsure of the tool's value.

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% for the single parameter 'testFiles', which has a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool categorizes tests by type, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it is vague about what 'type' means and does not distinguish from sibling tools like test_select or suggest_tests.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as test_run or test_select. The description implies a specific categorization task but lacks explicit usage context or prerequisites.

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