Convert Gherkin .feature text into the native Scenario model without executing it, returning scenario steps plus any unmapped, unsupported step lines.
Transpile a .feature (Gherkin, ru/en) into the native Scenario model without executing it. Returns the scenario steps and any unmapped (unsupported) step lines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feature_text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: no execution occurs and unmapped/unsupported lines are surfaced rather than silently dropped. It stops short of permissions, error behavior, or what happens on malformed Gherkin, so it is only partially complete for a mutation-free conversion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed immediately by the non-execution caveat and return contents. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required in the description, and the text still summarizes both outputs (steps and unmapped lines). For a single-parameter conversion tool this is largely complete, with only edge-case behavior unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single required `feature_text` property, leaving the description to compensate. It adds real value by clarifying the input is Gherkin and that ru/en languages are accepted, but does not specify size limits, encoding, or expected text structure beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Transpile), a specific source resource (.feature Gherkin, ru/en), and a specific target (native Scenario model). The clause 'without executing it' separates it from execution-oriented siblings like run_scenario and run_step, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without executing it' implies the when-to-use context (you want parsing/mapping rather than running a scenario), which is meaningful guidance. However, no alternative tool is named explicitly and no preconditions or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the choice against run_scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.