vacuous-tests-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| scan_testsA | Scan a file or directory for tests that cannot fail. Reports tests that pass regardless of the behaviour of the code they claim to cover: assertions that are true by construction, tests with no assertion at all, empty bodies, and tests that are skipped while still appearing in the suite. Python is analysed with the Args:
path: File or directory to scan. Build and dependency directories ( |
| list_rulesA | List every rule the scanner applies, with a one-paragraph description of each. |
| explain_ruleA | Explain one rule: what it detects and how the finding is usually resolved. Args:
rule: A rule id as returned by |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing available rules, explaining a specific rule, and scanning tests for vacuous assertions. There is no overlap between scan_tests and the two rule-related tools, and list_rules/explain_rule are clearly separated by verb (list vs. explain).
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_rules, explain_rule, scan_tests. The naming is predictable and aligns perfectly with the tool's action.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—a test scanner with rule documentation. Each tool earns its place, and the count falls squarely within the typical 3-15 range for a focused server.
The tool surface fully covers the intended workflow: discover rules, understand a rule, and run the scanner. There are no obvious gaps—the scanner's options are handled via arguments rather than requiring additional tools, and the rule lifecycle (list/explain) is complete for a read-only server.