Skip to main content
Glama
shivyadavus

Open Kioku

by shivyadavus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Open Kioku Find Tests For Change

find_tests_for_change
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank relevant test files for a changed repository file using naming conventions, imports, and co-change history. Run the right tests to validate your change.

Instructions

Identify test files that should be run to validate changes to one repository-relative file. Returns ranked test file paths with relevance scores based on naming conventions, import relationships, and co-change history. Use after identifying a changed file to select relevant test files that should be run to validate the change. Returns ranked test file paths with relevance scores based on naming conventions, import relationships, and co-change history. Do NOT use when a broader validation plan including static checks and coverage actions is needed (use recommend_validation_plan) or when checking existing coverage data (use explain_test_coverage). This is read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRepository-relative path of the file being changed (e.g., 'src/auth/handler.rs').
limitNoMaximum number of test file recommendations to return, ranked by relevance. Defaults to 20.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueNoWrapped non-object output, used for Markdown, TOON, or scalar responses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.2.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum test recommendations to return. Defaults to 20."New value: +"Maximum number of test file recommendations to return, ranked by relevance. Defaults to 20."
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"The repository-relative path of the file being changed."New value: +"Repository-relative path of the file being changed (e.g., 'src/auth/handler.rs')."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The MCP structuredContent object returned by this Open Kioku tool. Most tools expose their JSON fields directly; string or scalar tool outputs are wrapped as {\"value\": ...}.",
+  "properties": {
+    "value": {
+      "description": "Wrapped non-object output, used for Markdown, TOON, or scalar responses."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum test recommendations to return. Defaults to 20."
    • addedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Added value: +"The repository-relative path of the file being changed."
  3. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that the tool is read-only and explains ranking basis (naming conventions, import relationships, co-change history). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is repetitive: the sentence about ranked paths appears twice. Could be more concise, but overall structure is logical and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given only 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and output schema existence, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and exclusions thoroughly. No 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. Description adds no new information beyond schema; it mentions default limit but schema already does. Baseline 3 per rules.

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?

Description clearly states it identifies test files for a changed file, ranks them with relevance scores, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like recommend_validation_plan and explain_test_coverage. The verb 'identify' and resource 'test files' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('after identifying a changed file') and when not to use ('when a broader validation plan needed' or 'when checking existing coverage'), naming alternative tools. Provides clear guidance.

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