Skip to main content
Glama

sumo_qa_format_qa_scorecard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compose a QA readiness scorecard from test evidence and risk coverage to derive a four-state recommendation (ready, blocked, insufficient evidence) without numeric scoring.

Instructions

Compose a QA READINESS SCORECARD from already-produced evidence and DERIVE a readiness recommendation (issue #151). EVIDENCE SUMMARY, NOT a predictive quality score — it infers no risk, invents no numeric score, and the host can never assert "ready": the verdict is computed.

Common natural-language phrasings that map to this tool: "is this ready to merge/release", "give me a readiness scorecard", "summarise QA readiness", "release review summary".

Inputs are all optional and reuse the existing artifacts — nothing is re-defined here:

  • ledger_rows — the #144 risk-to-test rows (same shape as sumo_qa_format_risk_ledger); supplies risk coverage + blockers.

  • context_bundle — the #149 bundle (same shape as sumo_qa_format_context_bundle); supplies test/CI evidence freshness.

  • coverage / mutation — optional {..., freshness} signals; absent ⇒ reported as "not measured", never assumed passing, and never allowed to outweigh an uncovered high-impact risk.

  • scope — optional label (a PR title, a release name).

  • local_head_sha — optional live local head, to flag a stale bundle.

Returns the four-state recommendation (ready / ready_with_accepted_ residuals / blocked / insufficient_evidence), is_ready (true only for the two ready states), the uncovered-blocker / residual counts, the stale-evidence and not-measured dimension lists, the rendered markdown, a one-line compact_summary to drop inline in short answers, and a JSON-able serialized snapshot a downstream report (#157) can render. Readiness is refused whenever a risk is an uncovered blocker or evidence is stale — that guarantee is structural, not advisory.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNo
coverageNo
mutationNo
ledger_rowsNo
max_reasonsNo
context_bundleNo
local_head_shaNo
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'infers no risk, invents no numeric score', 'host can never assert ready', structural guarantee on readiness refusal. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, so description enriches with precise conditions.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Slightly verbose in places, but every sentence adds value. Appropriate length for complexity.

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?

Covers input semantics, output fields (four-state recommendation, counts, rendered markdown), and behavioral guarantees. Despite no output schema, description fully specifies return values. References to other tools provide necessary context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter in detail: ledger_rows, context_bundle, coverage, mutation, scope, local_head_sha, max_reasons. Provides semantics, allowed shapes, and behavior when absent.

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 'Compose a QA READINESS SCORECARD' and derives a readiness recommendation, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing their output shapes (risk ledger, context bundle) and natural language phrasings mapping to this tool.

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?

Explicitly says inputs are optional and reuse existing artifacts, and provides common phrasings. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but context from siblings and description implies this is the final readiness assessment tool.

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