get_test_runGet the results of a specific test run including status, timing and per-case results. Use the testRunId returned by run_test_suite. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| testRunId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the test run |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which covers the side-effect profile. The description adds contextual behavior by noting that project context is required and that the ID comes from run_test_suite, which helps the agent understand prerequisites. No contradictions.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that convey purpose, return contents, ID source, and context requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The description tells the agent what the tool returns (status, timing, per-case results), where to get the required parameter, and that project context is needed. Given that the output schema is absent, this is sufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it 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?
The only parameter, testRunId, is fully described in the schema as 'Public ID (GUID) of the test run,' and the description reinforces its origin from run_test_suite. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context for obtaining the value.
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's purpose: retrieving results of a specific test run, including status, timing, and per-case results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_test_result or get_test_suite by focusing on a test run identified via testRunId, and citing run_test_suite as the source for that ID.
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 provides useful guidance: use the testRunId returned by run_test_suite and requires project context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, but the pointer to the preceding tool and the context requirement offer practical usage direction.
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 tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.