Skip to main content
Glama

Oakallow

by io.github.oakallow

start_test

Starts a Testing Run

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoAn identifier for the agent making this call (free text — a name, code, or number you use to track your own agents). Lets the oakallow governance report distinguish which agent submitted each call instead of attributing everything to the connector account. Optional but recommended; send the same value consistently per agent.
reasonNoShort non-sensitive summary of why this tool is being called (e.g. "grant_credits requested after verify_coupon"). Oakallow automatically redacts SSN, card numbers, emails, phone numbers, and addresses from this field before storing — do not rely on redaction, avoid putting customer PII here.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With all annotation hints set to false, the description carries the full burden but discloses no behavioral traits. It implies mutation by starting a run but does not explain side effects, idempotency, or resource impact.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified. It achieves conciseness at the expense of informativeness, which is closer to minimal viable than ideal.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not specify return values, asynchronous behavior, or any post-call effects, leaving the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-related information, relying entirely on the schema descriptions which are already present.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Starts a Testing Run' clearly identifies the action and resource, but it is minimal and does not distinguish the tool from siblings beyond the name. It lacks context on what a testing run entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_approval_status or list_pending_approvals. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

All Oakallow 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, but check_approval_status and list_pending_approvals both relate to approvals and could be confused if not read carefully. However, descriptions clarify the difference, so disambiguation is good but not perfect.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_, list_, start_). The verbs are clear and the names are predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a reasonable number for the domain of permission/approval management. It's well within the 3-15 range and each tool serves a distinct function without being overwhelming.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has significant gaps. There is no way to approve or reject an approval request beyond checking its status, nor any tool to create, update, or delete custom tools beyond listing them. The start_test tool seems unrelated to the core domain, leaving incomplete coverage for the apparent purpose.

Resources