Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

testrail_list_all_cases

List EVERY case in a TestRail project/suite/section, walking all pages server-side so the caller never handles offsets. Returns compact id+title rows by default because the full form overruns the output limit on real projects — pass compact:false only for a narrow sectionId. Capped at 20 pages (5000 cases); check capReached. If you only need to know whether one specific case exists, use testrail_find_cases instead — it is far cheaper.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`compact`	No	Defaults to true (id + title only). Set false for all 7 fields — only safe on a small section.
`suiteId`	No	Optional suite scope
`projectId`	Yes	TestRail project id
`sectionId`	No	Optional section scope

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: server-side pagination (caller never handles offsets), output limits (capped at 20 pages/5000 cases), the compact-by-default result format, and the capReached flag. This is substantial transparency beyond what annotations might provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, zero waste. Each sentence conveys critical information: the exhaustive list behavior, the compact default rationale, and the alternative tool. The structure front-loads the main purpose and then provides warnings and alternatives.

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?

For a tool with pagination, size caps, and no output schema, the description covers essential return behavior (compact id+title rows, capReached) and warns about practical pitfalls. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters already have descriptions. The description adds meaning to 'compact' by explaining the default behavior and when it's safe to set false, and to 'sectionId' by implying it narrows scope. It also mentions capReached, which relates to output, adding extra context not in the schema.

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?

Description states 'List EVERY case in a TestRail project/suite/section' – a specific verb (list), resource (case), and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like testrail_list_cases and testrail_find_cases by emphasizing the exhaustive nature and the alternative for single-case lookups.

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?

Explicitly states the tool's intended use for listing every case and walking pages server-side. It provides a concrete exclusion: 'If you only need to know whether one specific case exists, use testrail_find_cases instead — it is far cheaper.' Also warns that compact:false should only be used with a narrow sectionId, guiding safe usage.

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

All Robot Actions — Remote Device Control tools Inspect

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

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.

Naming Consistency2/5

The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).

Tool Count1/5

333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.

Completeness4/5

The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?