MCP Server By TestMu AI

Post Session Exceptions

postSessionExceptions

Upload exception/error logs from the client machine for a test session, by session ID. Use this to attach assertion failures or unexpected errors to a session. The result reads the test's exceptions back to confirm they were stored. The automation dashboard may not show exceptions uploaded this way after the test ended.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The exceptions to attach: {"exception": ["first message", "second message"]}
`sessionId`	Yes	The session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / data / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
```

changedInput schema / properties / data / description

Previous value: -"Exception payload to upload"New value: +"The exceptions to attach: {\"exception\": [\"first message\", \"second message\"]}"

addedInput schema / properties / data / properties

Added value: +{
+  "exception": {
+    "description": "Exception messages, one string each",
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "minItems": 1,
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / data / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "exception"
+]
```

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result reads exceptions back to confirm storage, and — critically — that the automation dashboard may not reflect exceptions uploaded after the test ended. That delayed-visibility caveat is real operational context the annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value (use case, verification behavior, caveat). Minor slack, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the read-back confirmation behavior, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a nested-parameter mutation tool this is close to complete; permission requirements for uploading to an arbitrary session are the only noticeable omission.

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% and the nested `data.exception` structure is fully documented with an example, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only restates 'by session ID' and adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Upload exception/error logs from the client machine for a test session, by session ID.' The session scoping implicitly separates it from the sibling postTestExceptions, which handles test-level exceptions, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to attach assertion failures or unexpected errors to a session.' However, it offers no explicit when-not condition or named alternative (e.g. postTestExceptions for the test-level case), so the agent must infer the split.

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

All MCP Server By TestMu AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?