test_run_behatExecute Behat tests for Drupal, filtering by tags and choosing a profile or format, to validate behavior-driven scenarios.
Run Behat tests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| format | No | pretty | |
| profile | No | default |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, required setup, execution environment, or whether tests are destructive. This is a critical omission for a test-execution tool that may modify system state or require configuration.
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?
The single sentence is extremely concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks the structure needed to be genuinely helpful. This is borderline, but the brevity is inadequate rather than efficient.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 optional parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is far from complete. Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description fails to help an agent understand parameter usage or behavioral context, making correct invocation unlikely.
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?
The input schema has 3 parameters (tags, format, profile) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no information about any parameter, leaving their meaning and expected values entirely undocumented. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not.
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 ('Run') and resource ('Behat tests'), making the basic action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling test runners like test_run_phpunit or test_run_kernel, so an agent cannot easily tell when to pick this one over those without external knowledge.
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 description provides no guidance on when or why to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no mention of the Behat framework context, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.