Execute unit and integration test suites in an isolated environment for a named repository, with an optional filter to target specific test files.
Run unit and integration test suites in an isolated environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repository | Yes | Repository name to run unit & integration tests for | |
| testFilter | No | Optional test pattern/filter to run specific test files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one trait—execution in an 'isolated environment'—but says nothing about failure behavior, timeouts, resource limits, or whether tests can mutate state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the key scope front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably terse for a test-runner with unstated return semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a run returns (pass/fail, logs, how failures surface). It leaves the agent unable to predict the result shape for a tool whose entire value is its output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (repository, testFilter) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Run unit and integration test suites'), and the scope narrows it versus generic build/lint tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling (e.g., run_lint, run_build), so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like run_lint or run_build. The agent must infer that this is the tool for verifying code correctness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.