Add an item to a suite. itemType 'test' references a flow recording (category='test'); 'testPlan' references a plan. orderIndex controls position (appended to the end if omitted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | Item id — a flow recording id (itemType='test') or plan id (itemType='testPlan') | |
| suiteId | Yes | Suite id to add the item to | |
| itemType | Yes | What itemId points at | |
| orderIndex | No | Position within the suite (appended if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the itemType semantics and orderIndex default, but does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on error (e.g., missing suite or item), or any permissions or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap, though it does not contradict any annotations (since none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then clarifies key parameters. It contains no fluff or redundancy, earning a top score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple add operation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the main semantics (itemType and orderIndex). It does not address error conditions or prerequisites, but these are largely implied by the required suiteId and itemId. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that itemType 'test' references a flow recording with category='test', which is more detailed than the schema's generic 'What itemId points at.' It also reinforces orderIndex behavior. This extra context elevates it slightly above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Add an item to a suite.' It also defines the two itemType values and their references, making the purpose specific and unambiguous. This tool is distinct from sibling test_suite tools (create, list, run, run_status) because it is the only one focused on adding an item to an existing suite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_suite_create or test_suite_run. It implicitly indicates usage for existing suites (since suiteId is required), but it does not provide exclusions or name alternative tools. The context about itemType and orderIndex helps, but there is no explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
