Skip to main content
Glama

sumo_qa_export_test_cases

Export structured QA test cases into markdown, JSON, or CSV format. Supports optional file output with validation to prevent overwrites or writes outside allowed directory.

Instructions

Deterministically EXPORT already-structured QA test cases into one documented machine-readable shape (issue #148). FILE/FORMAT PLUMBING ONLY — the host LLM identifies the cases; this tool never infers them and never inspects a repo. By DEFAULT it is side-effect free (it RETURNS the rendered text and writes nothing); a file is persisted ONLY when an explicit output_path is supplied.

Each case is a dict with: id (stable within this export), title, preconditions (ordered list, may be empty), steps (ordered list, may be empty), expected_result, optional linked_risk_id (a risk id in a companion risk ledger), priority (one of critical / high / medium / low), and evidence_status (one of planned / passing / failing / stale / accepted_residual — the same vocabulary as the risk ledger).

format is one of: markdown (the DEFAULT human-facing table), json (a versioned, key-sorted, deterministic document), or csv (OPTIONAL, and only valid for a flat outline — at most one precondition and one step per case). An unsupported format, or CSV for a non-flat export, returns an error envelope naming the supported formats. Tool- specific import mappings may need local adjustment.

export_title (optional) names the export as a whole — rendered in the markdown header and the JSON top-level title. (It is named export_title, not title, so it is distinct from each case's own title and survives the served-schema title-slimming pass.)

output_path (optional) is the EXPLICIT file-write carve-out. When omitted (the default) nothing is written. When given, the SAME rendered bytes are ALSO persisted, confined to the project export root (<cwd>/.sumo-qa/exports): a relative path resolves under that root, an absolute path or .. traversal that escapes it is refused, and an already-existing target is refused rather than silently overwritten. The write only happens AFTER successful validation+render, so a bad export never leaves a file. On a successful write written_path carries the resolved absolute path (else None).

Returns the rendered content, the chosen format, the stamped schema_version, the validated test_case_count, and written_path (the persisted location, or None on the default no-write path).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNomarkdown
test_casesYes
output_pathNo
export_titleNo
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly explains side-effect behavior, file-writing rules, error handling, and the case structure. It goes well beyond the schema and annotations, providing comprehensive behavioral transparency. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is comprehensive but well-structured, starting with core purpose then detailing case structure and parameters. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly lengthy. It is front-loaded and organized effectively.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, optional file writing, return structure), the description covers all necessary aspects: input constraints, edge cases, error handling, and return fields. Despite no output schema, return values are explicitly listed. High completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by exhaustively explaining each parameter: test_cases structure, format enum and constraints, export_title purpose, and output_path file write rules. Adds immense meaning 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 explicitly names the verb 'EXPORT' and specifies the resource 'already-structured QA test cases'. It clarifies what the tool does not do (infer or inspect), distinguishing it from other tools in the suite. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states it is only for plumbing and that the host LLM identifies cases, implying use when cases are already known. While it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sumithr/sumo-qa'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server