Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ado_create_regression_suite

WHEN: the test cases of some touched objects should be grouped in one suite of an existing test plan, to replay them. Triggers: 'create the regression suite', 'suite de non-régression pour la PR N', 'group the tests of these objects'. Creates a query-based (dynamic) suite that gathers by itself every test case tagged obj:. SAFE BY DEFAULT: confirm=false only shows the suite and how many cases it would gather now. Call again with confirm=true after the user agreed. A suite with the same name in the plan is reused. Needs a PAT with Test Management (Read & write) and the Basic + Test Plans access level.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "planId": "<planId>",
      "objects": "<objects>"
    },
    "name": "ado_create_regression_suite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoSuite name. Default: 'Regression - ' and the first objects.
planIdYesId of the test plan that will hold the suite.
confirmNofalse (default): preview only. true: create. Only after the user agreed.
objectsYesComma-separated D365 objects whose test cases the suite gathers.
projectNoAzure DevOps project. Falls back to DEVOPS_PROJECT.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds important behavior beyond that: the suite is dynamic and tag-driven, confirm=false is a preview, confirm=true creates only after user agreement, same-name suites are reused, and specific PAT/access-level requirements apply.

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?

The description is front-loaded with WHEN and triggers, then moves cleanly into creation semantics, safety behavior, reuse behavior, and permissions. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical missing context: what gets created, how it is populated, what the preview mode returns, when to confirm, reuse of same-name suites, and authentication/access prerequisites.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the suite gathers test cases tagged obj:<object> and by reinforcing the confirm gate and same-name reuse behavior.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: creates a query-based regression suite in an existing test plan. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining that the suite dynamically gathers test cases tagged obj:<object>, which is materially different from creating a plan or merely finding tests.

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?

It provides an explicit WHEN condition and concrete trigger phrases, plus the confirm=false preview then confirm=true creation flow. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as ado_find_tests_for_objects or ado_create_test_plan, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All ALM X++ MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources