Skip to main content
Glama

validation_run

Run a complete browser acceptance test plan: clear errors, inject probes, record traces, execute test cases, assert results, investigate failures, and export HAR with evidence artifacts.

Instructions

Execute a complete browser acceptance plan: auto-clear errors, inject probes, record trace, run browser_flow per case, assert, investigate failures, export HAR, and persist evidence artifacts.

中文详情:

  • 用途:执行完整的浏览器端到端验收测试计划,自动完成错误清空、探针注入、trace 录制、按用例执行 browser_flow、断言、失败调查、HAR 导出和证据保存

  • 何时使用:需要一次性运行多个测试用例并产出完整证据链时;CI/CD 流水线中需要 gate 检查时;版本发布前回归验证时;复杂业务流程端到端验证时

  • 输出:{ ok: boolean, planName: string, totalCases: number, passedCases: number, failedCases: number, artifacts: { screenshots: [], traces: [], har: string, report: string }, summary: string }

  • 参数:

    • name (string, 可选):验证计划名称,用于报告标识

    • cases (array, 必填):测试用例列表,每项含 name/sessionName/steps/assertions/focus/symptom/expected/continueOnError

    • clearArtifacts (boolean, 可选):执行前是否清理旧截图/trace/har,默认 false

    • clearErrors (boolean, 可选):执行前是否清空错误 checkpoint,默认 true

    • instrument (boolean, 可选):是否注入运行时探针,默认 true

    • trace (boolean, 可选):是否录制 trace,默认 true

    • har (boolean, 可选):是否导出 HAR JSON,默认 true

    • investigateOnFailure (boolean, 可选):失败时是否自动调用 debug_investigate,默认 true

    • continueOnFailure (boolean, 可选):用例失败后是否继续执行后续用例,默认 false

  • 错误:cases 为空抛出 'No test cases provided';浏览器未启动抛出 'Browser not launched';单个用例断言失败会在 result 中标记 failed 但不抛出

  • 示例:{"name":"login-regression","cases":[{"name":"valid-login","steps":[{"action":"navigate","url":"https://example.com/login"}],"assertions":{"urlContains":"dashboard"}}],"clearArtifacts":true}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
harNo是否导出 HAR JSON,默认 true
nameNo验证计划名称
casesYes测试用例列表
traceNo是否录制 trace,默认 true
instrumentNo是否注入运行时探针,默认 true
clearErrorsNo执行前是否清空错误 checkpoint,默认 true
clearArtifactsNo执行前是否清理截图、trace、har,默认 false
continueOnFailureNo用例失败后是否继续执行后续用例,默认 false
investigateOnFailureNo失败时是否自动调用 debug_investigate,默认 true
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the full workflow: auto-clear errors, inject probes, trace, per-case browser_flow, assertion, investigation, HAR export, and evidence persistence. It also lists error conditions and handling of failures.

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 long (bilingual) but well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, output, parameters, errors, and example. It is comprehensive but could be more concise by removing redundant Chinese translations.

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?

The tool is complex with 9 parameters and orchestration of multiple steps. The description covers output structure, error conditions, and provides an example. Despite no output schema, the output format is explicitly documented. This is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters described in schema). The description repeats and adds default values, as well as an example. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 clearly states 'Execute a complete browser acceptance plan' and enumerates the steps. The verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools, which are lower-level browser actions.

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 includes a '何时使用' section in Chinese, explaining when to use the tool (multiple test cases, CI/CD, regression, end-to-end). While it provides good context, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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/validpilot/ai-verify-mcp'

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