Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BoomBidiBuyBuy

tuskr-mcp-server

by BoomBidiBuyBuy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Add Test Run Results

add_test_run_results

Record test results for one or multiple test cases in a Tuskr test run using a single bulk request, applying the same status and optional comments, assignee, time, fields, or attachments.

Instructions

Records a result against one or more test cases in a test run.

Tuskr exposes a single bulk endpoint for results, so one call applies the same status to every test case listed. Pass a single test case to record one result, or a list to record many in one request. Always prefer one call with a list over repeated single calls: Tuskr rate-limits every plan at 10 requests/second.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesresult status key, e.g. 'PASSED', 'FAILED', 'RETEST'. Status keys are configured per tenant, so use the keys defined in your own Tuskr account.
commentsNofree-text comment stored on every result created by this call
test_runYesID, key or name of the test run. Keys and names are matched across the whole tenant, not within one project. If several projects have a run with the same key or name (for example 'R-1'), Tuskr rejects the call with 'Multiple test runs found' and records nothing. Pass the run's UUID to avoid the ambiguity; list_test_runs returns it for a given project.
test_casesYesa single test case ID, key or name, or a list of them. The status is applied to every test case listed.
assigned_toNoID, name or email of the user. If present, the test cases in this test run will be assigned to this user.
attachmentsNoup to 2 local file paths (5 MB each), such as screenshots or logs. Tuskr attaches every file to the result record of EVERY test case in this call; there is no per-case attachment, so record cases that need different evidence in separate calls. Requires the server to run on the machine that holds the files and TUSKR_ATTACHMENT_DIR to be set; relative paths resolve against that directory and files outside it are rejected.
custom_fieldsNoJSON object mapping custom field keys to their values
time_spent_in_minutesNoexecution time recorded against every result

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add useful traits: the 10 requests/second rate limit and the fact that one status is applied to every listed test case. However, it never says whether existing results are overwritten, whether the call is idempotent, or what permissions are required for a mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences: the action first, then the bulk semantics, then the batching directive with the rate-limit rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description and rich schema together cover how to invoke the tool, but there is no output schema and the description never says what a successful call returns (result IDs, per-case status) or how overwrites behave. For a mutation with eight parameters, that leaves a real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters in detail. The description reinforces the list-vs-single semantics of test_cases but adds little that is not already in the field descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (records) and resource (a result against test cases in a test run), and the bulk-endpoint explanation makes clear it is a write tool rather than a reader like get_test_run_results. It never names a sibling explicitly, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Gives concrete guidance: 'Pass a single test case to record one result, or a list to record many in one request' and 'Always prefer one call with a list over repeated single calls.' It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use the tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools