List suites for a TestRail project. Most projects are single-suite (returns exactly one suite). Multi-suite projects return many. Returns id + name + description + is_master + is_baseline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | TestRail project id (from testrail_list_projects) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adequately discloses the return shape and the single/multi-suite behavior. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, error conditions, auth requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a benign list tool the disclosure is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loads the purpose, adds the single/multi-suite nuance, and lists the return fields. Every sentence earns its place, and the return-field listing is well-delimited with the plus signs.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter list tool. The description covers purpose, scoping behavior, and return fields. No pagination note exists but for a list-suites operation this is typically low-volume. The missing piece is guidance on what to do with the returned suites (e.g., passing suite_id to other tools), but that's beyond the minimum required for this tool's complexity.
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% and the single parameter (projectId, an integer with exclusiveMinimum 0) is described in the schema. The description adds value by referencing projectId comes from testrail_list_projects, which ties into the broader tool workflow — a helpful cross-reference beyond the schema.
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?
Clear verb+resource ('List suites for a TestRail project'), names the project scoping, and describes return fields (id, name, description, is_master, is_baseline). Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly covering single vs multi-suite behavior, though it doesn't name alternatives.
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 explains the single-suite vs multi-suite distinction which helps an agent understand what to expect, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs testrail_list_sections, testrail_list_runs, or other suite-related alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
