Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-agent-reliability

mcp-agent-reliability

by princeruhulofficial
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

generate_agent_tests

Generate three simple test prompts to verify an agent correctly selects and uses a given tool, ensuring reliable tool behavior.

Instructions

Generate 3 simple test prompts that you can feed to an agent to verify it correctly selects and uses a given tool.

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": {
      "tool_name": "<tool_name>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "generate_agent_tests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tool_nameYesName of the tool to test
descriptionYesDescription of the tool

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It discloses that the tool generates 3 prompts and the intended use, but does not detail any side effects, permissions, or output format. For a simple generation tool, this is minimal but acceptable.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous words. Front-loaded with the action.

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?

The description covers the core function and purpose, but lacks guidance on usage context, output structure, and any behavioral caveats. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (tool_name and description), with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate 3 simple test prompts' with the purpose of verifying an agent's tool selection and usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like score_tool_description or simulate_tool_choice.

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 description implies the use case (generating test prompts for tool verification) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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