Run test blocks in .ci source to get one CINT-TEST-1 line per test plus fault records for failures. Requires a local cint binary via PATH or CINT_PATH.
Run the test "name" { ... } blocks of cint (.ci) source (cint test) and return one CINT-TEST-1 line per test, with the fault record of each failure. Needs a local cint (PATH or CINT_PATH).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Complete .ci source code containing test blocks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (one CINT-TEST-1 line per test, plus the fault record of each failure) and the environment requirement. It stops short of stating that the supplied source is actually executed, or anything about timeouts/side effects, so it is not fully transparent for an execution tool.
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 sentences, both earning their place: the first covers what is run and what comes back, the second covers the environment prerequisite. The first sentence is dense but front-loads the essential information with no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does so concretely (CINT-TEST-1 lines plus fault records). Combined with the prerequisite note and a single fully-documented parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though execution semantics remain unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Complete .ci source code containing test blocks'. The description repeats that constraint (test blocks) without adding syntax, size limits, or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (run) and resource (the `test "name" { ... }` blocks of cint .ci source), and even names the equivalent CLI invocation `cint test`. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the execution-oriented siblings cint_check and cint_eval, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and the description's focus on test blocks, and a concrete prerequisite is given (a local cint on PATH or via CINT_PATH). However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as cint_check or cint_eval, and no statement of when this tool is the wrong choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.