List existing TestRail cases in a section by section ID to review case IDs, titles, and references before creating new cases, helping avoid duplicates.
List existing cases (id, title, refs) in a section, e.g. to avoid creating duplicates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suite_id | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| section_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List existing' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state no side effects, permission requirements, or pagination behavior; the output schema covers return shape but not operational traits.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a compact parenthetical return summary and use case. Every part earns its place with no wasted wording.
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 list tool and an output schema exists, so return details need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description omits context for the optional IDs and does not state that the operation is safe/read-only, making it only minimally adequate.
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 description coverage is 0% with 3 parameters. The description ties the operation to a 'section', which corresponds to the required section_id, but it says nothing about the optional suite_id and project_id, leaving 2 of 3 parameters without semantic context.
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?
States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('existing cases'), scope ('in a section'), and returned fields ('id, title, refs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like testrail_add_cases and the various list_* metadata tools.
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?
Provides a concrete usage context: 'e.g. to avoid creating duplicates,' which implies calling this before testrail_add_cases. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative list tools, but the main when-to-use guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.