get_test_resultsList the run history of a test suite: each execution with status, timing and pass/fail counts. Returns run ids — pass one to get_test_run for that run's cases, then get_test_result for one case. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of runs to skip (for pagination, default 0) | |
| take | No | Number of runs to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| testSuiteId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the test suite |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by describing the returned data (status, timing, pass/fail counts) and the workflow of run ids, plus the context requirement, going beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then workflow, then prerequisite. Every word earns its place with zero waste.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (run history with details) and how to proceed, making it complete for an agent to use correctly. It also notes the context requirement.
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 covers all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool lists run history of a test suite with status, timing, and pass/fail counts, and distinguishes itself from get_test_run and get_test_result by describing the downstream flow. This differentiates it from siblings like get_test_suite or list_test_runs.
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?
It provides explicit routing: pass run ids to get_test_run then get_test_result, and notes the prerequisite of project context. This clearly guides when to use this tool as the entry point for exploring test results.
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.