test_scaffold_nightwatchCreate a Nightwatch test scaffold for a Drupal module by providing module and test name, plus optional test steps, to set up browser automation tests.
Scaffold a Nightwatch test.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | Yes | ||
| test_name | Yes | ||
| test_steps | No |
| 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 behavioral burden. 'Scaffold' implies creation of test files, but the description does not disclose where files are written, whether existing files are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur.
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 front-loaded and free of waste, but it is too terse for a three-parameter scaffold tool with no annotations. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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?
For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no input parameter descriptions, the definition is far too sparse. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but side effects, parameter usage, and creation behavior are all missing.
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 description coverage is 0% for three parameters (module, test_name, test_steps). The description adds no meaning, format guidance, or examples for any of them, leaving required fields like 'module' and 'test_name' completely unexplained.
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?
The description gives a clear verb ('Scaffold') and resource ('Nightwatch test'), which distinguishes it from run-oriented siblings like test_run_nightwatch and from test_scaffold_phpunit/behat by framework. However, it does not explicitly contrast those alternatives or describe what module the test belongs to.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. The agent must infer from the name that this creates a test scaffold rather than runs one, with no guidance on when to choose this over test_scaffold_phpunit or test_scaffold_behat.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.