Skip to main content
Glama

get_coverage_gaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify project-wide test coverage gaps by summarizing unlinked cases, low-coverage folders, and unlinked autotests, providing actionable lists to guide linking automated tests.

Instructions

Identify test coverage gaps across a whole project. Every count here is of LIVE cases: archived ones are excluded throughout, and a project can hold several times its reported total once includeDeleted is passed to list_test_cases. Returns summary (totalCases, linkedCases, unlinkedCases, automationRate), foldersWithLowCoverage (folderId, name, caseCount, linkedCount, automationRate) for folders under automationThreshold - counted over the cases held DIRECTLY by each folder, so leaf suites appear and the containers above them do not, whatever sits nested beneath - unlinkedCases (caseId, displayId, title, status, priority, folderName) for cases with no linked autotest, and the reverse gap unlinkedAutotests, meaning autotests seen in the most recent launches that are linked to no case. IMPORTANT: unlinkedCases is an array but unlinkedAutotests is an OBJECT, shaped launchesScanned, totalUnlinked and items. items is hard-capped at 50 rows however large totalUnlinked is and whatever limit you pass, since limit sizes unlinkedCases and does not reach it, and it is drawn only from the last recentLaunches launches, 10 by default. So a title missing from items does NOT mean it is linked: it may be beyond the cap or older than the window. Two different definitions of linked are at work in one response, so read them apart. unlinkedAutotests ALONE uses the broad one: a test counts as linked there if it was linked with link_autotest_to_case OR if its title carries a [TC-N] marker that ingest resolved onto the test row. summary.linkedCases, summary.automationRate, foldersWithLowCoverage and unlinkedCases all use the narrow one and see only explicit links, which is also what get_test_case and the automationStatus filter of list_test_cases see. A case can therefore be counted unlinked in the same payload whose unlinkedAutotests treats its marker-bound test as covered. To settle one title, read get_test_case with includeRecentExecutions: a marker-bound test shows up there against its case and nowhere else, and search_tests will not help because it returns no linkage fields at all. totalUnlinked counts DISTINCT test titles, not rows or attempts, and is scoped to the same recentLaunches window as items rather than to the whole project. Read-only, nothing is written; close a gap afterwards with link_autotest_to_case. Pick this when the question is which cases or folders lack automation project-wide. Prefer get_feature_scan when the scope is a single Jira issue and Jira is connected, run_health_check when you want one scored assessment in which coverage is only one dimension, search_tests when you already know the autotest and want its results, and suggest_test_cases when the gap is a case that does not exist yet rather than a missing link. projectId comes from list_projects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of unlinked cases to return
projectIdYesProject UUID to analyze
recentLaunchesNoHow many of the most recent launches to scan for autotests that are not linked to any test case (reverse coverage gap). Default and max: 10.
automationThresholdNoFolders below this automation % are flagged as low coverage (default: 50)
includeUnlinkedCasesNoInclude list of test cases without linked autotests

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Read-only, nothing is written.' Even with that coverage, the description adds substantial non-obvious context: LIVE-only counting with archived/stubs inference, two mutually exclusive definitions of 'linked' active in the same response, a hard 50-row cap on items, a recentLaunches window, and a precise disambiguation path via get_test_case. This is far beyond what annotations convey, and nothing contradicts them.

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 purpose is front-loaded and almost every sentence carries unique information, but the middle section is one dense paragraph mixing output shapes, caps, windows, and linkage definitions, with contorted phrasing like 'since limit sizes unlinkedCases and does not reach it, and it is drawn only from the last recentLaunches launches.' Bulleted structure would meaningfully reduce parse effort for an agent. It is bloated rather than merely long.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values — and it fully carries it: it names all four output blocks (summary, foldersWithLowCoverage, unlinkedCases, unlinkedAutotests), lists the fields of each, explains the two linkage conventions, the 50-row cap, the window scoping, and the exact procedure for settling a single title with get_test_case. For a tool this intricate, even the edge cases (missing from items ≠ linked) are documented.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description genuinely adds meaning on top by linking parameters to output behavior: limit sizes unlinkedCases but does not reach the hard-capped unlinkedAutotests items, recentLaunches (default 10) scopes both totalUnlinked and items, and automationThreshold drives foldersWithLowCoverage aggregation. These semantics make the parameters' effects explicitly discoverable.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb + object + scope: 'Identify test coverage gaps across a whole project.' It also differentiates from siblings later by contrasting the project-wide scope with the single-Jira-issue scope of get_feature_scan, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Contains an explicit routing block: 'Pick this when the question is which cases or folders lack automation project-wide,' followed by named alternatives with their conditions (get_feature_scan for a single Jira issue, run_health_check for a scored assessment, suggest_test_cases for gaps that are nonexistent cases, search_tests for known autotests). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/m00nreport/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server