List the authenticated user's test suites. Pass suiteId to fetch a single suite together with its ordered items (tests + plans). Pass parentSuiteId to list only that suite's direct children; omit both to list every suite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suiteId | No | Fetch this single suite and include its items (tests + plans) | |
| parentSuiteId | No | List only suites whose parent is this id (use '' or omit for all) |
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 carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior: returned items are ordered, children are direct-only, and all suites are listed when no filter is given. However, it does not mention the return format, pagination, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, which would be expected with no annotation coverage.
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?
Three short sentences convey the core action and all parameter modes with zero wasted wording. The most important instruction is front-loaded, and every clause adds functional information.
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 low-complexity list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation patterns well. It could be slightly more complete by describing the shape of the returned list or any pagination limits, but the agent has enough to call the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining behavioral outcomes: suiteId yields a single suite with its ordered items, and parentSuiteId restricts results to direct children. This enriches both parameters beyond their plain property descriptions.
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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('the authenticated user's test suites'), and precisely defines three distinct modes via suiteId, parentSuiteId, or neither. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling test suite tools like test_suite_create or test_suite_run without needing to inspect their schemas.
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 gives concrete conditions for when to use each parameter: suiteId for a single suite with its items, parentSuiteId for direct children, and omitting both for the full listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like testrail_list_suites, but the usage context is clear and actionable.
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.
