Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

testrail_list_cases

List test cases in a TestRail project, optionally scoped to a suite and/or section. Use this to discover case ids before calling testrail_get_case, or to check what already exists before creating a new case with testrail_create_case. Returns { cases: [...], paging: {...} }, where each case is a compact summary (id, title, section_id, suite_id, priority_id, type_id, refs) — call testrail_get_case for full step detail on a specific case. Results are NOT auto-paged: TestRail caps a page at 250, so always check paging.hasMore and re-call with offset=paging.nextOffset before concluding a case does not exist. Prefer scoping with sectionId/suiteId over paging the whole project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max cases to return in this page (TestRail default 250)
`offset`	No	Row offset for paging past the first page
`compact`	No	Return only id + title per case instead of all 7 fields. Roughly 15x smaller — use when scanning for whether a case exists, then call testrail_get_case for detail.
`suiteId`	No	Suite id — required for multi-suite projects, optional for single-suite
`projectId`	Yes	TestRail project id
`sectionId`	No	Section id — scope results to cases directly inside this section

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return shape ({ cases, paging }), the compact per-case fields, the 250-page cap, the lack of auto-paging, and the need to check paging.hasMore and follow paging.nextOffset. This is excellent behavioral transparency.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use cases, return shape, pagination warning, and scoping best practice. Front-loaded with the primary action and no fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the return format, compact fields, pagination behavior, and relationship to related tools. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and avoid the common paging pitfall.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces paging semantics with 'offset=paging.nextOffset' and 'paging.hasMore', and mentions sectionId/suiteId scoping, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the already detailed schema descriptions for individual parameters.

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?

Clearly states it lists test cases in a project with optional suite/section scoping, and explicitly mentions workflows with testrail_get_case and testrail_create_case. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like testrail_list_all_cases or testrail_find_cases, so differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use it to discover case ids before testrail_get_case, or to check existence before testrail_create_case. It also recommends preferring sectionId/suiteId scoping over paging the whole project. It lacks explicit when-not guidance versus alternatives like list_all_cases or find_cases.

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?