Skip to main content
Glama

Symvanta

by com.symvanta

list_tests_for

Read-onlyIdempotent

Test suites and cases whose suite name matches a symbol name (case-insensitive substring). Call before adding tests to see existing coverage and mirror its shape.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feedbackNoOptional: report how a previous answer worked out; piggybacks on any call.
selectorYesSymbol name to match against test suite names.
commitShaNoPin reads to one indexed revision (7-40 hex). Graph tools error with revision_not_indexed when it is not an indexed revision of the scoped repository, or revision_not_servable when that revision's graph was superseded by a later reindex, and echo the revision served back as commitSha; source ops read git objects, so any commit works there. Exception: a kept revision (revisions rows flagged architectureSnapshot) still serves map view:"architecture" as a preserved snapshot.
projectIdNoProject id from init/list_projects. Omit for the active project.
repositoryNoRepository full name, e.g. "owner/repo". Omit when the project has one repository.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior like case-insensitive substring matching and that output is intended to be mirrored, but it does not disclose result ordering, pagination, limits, or error cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences carry both the core behavior and the primary use case with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded in the first sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what entities are returned (test suites and cases) and that they can be mirrored as templates. With 100% schema description coverage for the five parameters plus safety annotations, an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool 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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is met. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by specifying that matching is a case-insensitive substring and that the selector denotes a symbol name, which clarifies how the required selector will be interpreted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists 'Test suites and cases' matching a symbol name, and adds precise matching semantics with 'case-insensitive substring'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_file_symbols or find_node, which are not test-focused.

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?

'Call before adding tests to see existing coverage and mirror its shape' gives an explicit when-to-use context tied to a concrete workflow. It does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Symvanta toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools generally target distinct operations—repository attachment, symbol resolution, graph traversal, source access, indexing health—and the detailed routing notes reduce ambiguity. A few pairs still overlap in intent (quick_lookup vs locate symbol, context vs ask_codebase), so it is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb_noun patterns like add_repository and list_projects with single-word nouns/verbs like context, history, map, relate, and source, plus one acronym (adr). There is no predictable convention across the full surface, though individual names are clear.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the high end for a single MCP server and falls in the 'feels heavy' range. The breadth is justified by the code-intelligence/query domain, but the selection surface is large for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The code indexing, search, graph query, source access, history, ADR, test lookup, and scope estimation needs are well covered. Minor gaps remain—no detach/remove repository, no ADR content editing, and source access is gated by an add-on—but these are workable.

Resources