Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Code Reader MCP Server

Code Reader MCP Server

by tix-ruthsan-r
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_test_template

Fetch a test template tailored to the API type and service name, enabling automated test case generation for your code.

Instructions

Get a test template based on API type and service

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": {
      "serviceName": "<serviceName>",
      "apiType": "<apiType>"
    },
    "name": "get_test_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiTypeYesType of API
httpMethodNoHTTP method for REST APIs
serviceNameYesName of the service

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether the returned template is read-only, whether the operation has side effects, whether results are cached, or what the response contains. For a template-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it is somewhat under-specified rather than maximally efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and no usage context, the description does not tell the agent what it will receive or when this tool is correct versus siblings. For a 3-param tool with optional httpMethod that only applies to REST, more guidance is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the enum for apiType. The description only echoes the parameters implicitly ('based on API type and service') without adding format, constraint, or interaction details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a verb ('Get') and resource ('test template'), which is clear enough on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_api_details or analyze_api_endpoint. The phrase 'based on API type and service' adds selection criteria but not a distinct purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must guess whether this tool is for generating tests, fetching templates, or something else relative to analyze_api_endpoint.

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