Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ado_record_test_result

Idempotent

WHEN: a manual test case of an Azure DevOps test plan has been run (by you through the ERP tools, or reported by the user) and its result must be recorded, so the plan shows what passed and what failed. Triggers: 'record the result', 'mark the test passed', 'enregistre le résultat du test', 'set the test outcome'. Needs the plan id and suite id (the ones ado_create_test_plan returned) and the test case id. outcome is Passed, Failed, Blocked or NotApplicable. Pass evidence (what was done and what was observed, no personal data): it is added as a comment on the test case, which is the audit trail. SAFE BY DEFAULT: confirm=false only shows what would be recorded. Call again with confirm=true after the user agreed. Never record Passed for something that was not verified. Needs a PAT with Test Management (Read & write) and Work Items (Read & write).

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>",
      "suiteId": "<suiteId>",
      "testCaseId": "<testCaseId>",
      "outcome": "<outcome>"
    },
    "name": "ado_record_test_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planIdYesTest plan id.
confirmNofalse (default): preview only. true: record.
outcomeYesPassed, Failed, Blocked or NotApplicable.
projectNoAzure DevOps project. Falls back to DEVOPS_PROJECT.
suiteIdYesTest suite id inside the plan.
evidenceNoWhat was done and what was observed. Added as a comment on the test case.
testCaseIdYesId of the Test Case work item.

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 only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true); the description adds material context beyond them: the confirm=false dry-run versus confirm=true write protocol, that evidence becomes an audit-trail comment on the work item, required PAT scopes (Test Management and Work Items, Read & write), and a correctness constraint against false passes.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with WHEN/Triggers/SAFE BY DEFAULT markers, so an agent can scan the invocation condition, prerequisites, safety protocol, and permissions in order. Every sentence carries actionable content; nothing is restated from annotations or the schema verbatim.

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 everything an agent needs to call it correctly: prerequisites and their source, the preview/confirm two-step, valid outcomes, auth scopes, and the evidence/audit-trail contract.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it explains where planId/suiteId come from, spells out the allowed outcome values, and frames evidence as the audit trail comment (including a no-personal-data constraint) — semantics the schema field text only partially conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: recording the run result of a manual test case in an Azure DevOps test plan, with the outcome made visible in the plan. It is clearly distinct from siblings like ado_create_test_plan (plan creation) and ado_test_status (read status).

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?

The WHEN clause plus explicit trigger phrases ('record the result', 'mark the test passed', including a French variant) give concrete invocation conditions, and it states prerequisites (plan id/suite id from ado_create_test_plan, test case id) and a when-not rule ('Never record Passed for something that was not verified'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or describing the preview-then-confirm path in terms of tools, so not a full 5.

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