Evaluate assertions against the last SOAP or REST response using real, deterministic values so you can test them before adding them to a scenario file.
Evaluate assertions against the last soap_call / rest_call response (real values, deterministic). Use it to try assertions before writing them into a scenario file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assertions | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it evaluates against real values from the most recent call and is deterministic. It omits what happens when no prior call exists (error vs empty), which is the one meaningful gap.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the usage rule. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. For a one-parameter tool this is nearly adequate, but the complete absence of assertion syntax in both schema and description leaves the caller guessing how to construct the required argument.
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 0% and the single 'assertions' parameter is an untyped array of free-form objects with additionalProperties=true. The description says 'assertions' but never describes their structure, keys, or supported operators — the one thing an agent must know to call this correctly. It clarifies only the evaluation target (the last response).
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: evaluate assertions against the last soap_call / rest_call response. Naming the two source tools and the 'last response' scope makes the purpose unmistakable and separates it from suite/scenario runners. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with validate_scenario, which is the nearest sibling.
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?
Gives an explicit when-to-use: try assertions here before writing them into a scenario file. That implicitly names the alternative workflow (run_scenario / validate_scenario) and the condition that selects this tool. No explicit when-not-to-use is given, but the framing is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.