Execute all project tests automatically through the HooksMCP server to verify code functionality without manual command approval.
Run all tests in the project
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": "all_tests"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Run all tests' implies an action that may have side effects (e.g., executing tests, generating reports), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (executing all tests, which could involve significant behavior) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'running tests' entails, what results to expect, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, and it implicitly confirms no inputs are required by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.
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?
The description 'Run all tests in the project' clearly states the verb ('Run') and resource ('all tests in the project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_file' or 'test_specific' that likely run subsets of tests, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_file' or 'test_specific'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.