Skip to main content
Glama

Get Test Run Timeline

get_test_run_timeline

Reports the true first and last execution times for a test run, including duration and active days, instead of relying on administrative created and locked timestamps.

Instructions

Reports when testing in a test run actually started and finished.

Use this instead of comparing a run's createdAt to its lockedAt. Those two bracket the run's administrative life, not its testing: a run is typically opened before anyone executes against it and locked well after the last result, so the gap between them can be twice the real duration.

This reads the per-execution timestamps Tuskr keeps on each test case and keeps only those recorded against this run, giving the true first and last execution, the span between them, and how many distinct days saw activity.

For a recent run, get_test_run_details is the cheaper way to get the first and last result times and the duration: one small call, where this tool fetches every results page untrimmed (100 cases per page). Use this tool when those timestamps come back null (Tuskr may not have recorded them for older results), or when you need the number of distinct days with activity, the daily breakdown, or the cases that were never executed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
test_runYesID of the test run. This is the UUID after /test-run/ in the Tuskr URL. The underlying endpoint addresses the run in the URL path, so a run name or R-key is not accepted; resolve one to its ID with list_test_runs first.
include_daily_breakdownNoif True (default), adds executionsByDay, a map of date to execution count. Useful for telling a run worked steadily over a week from one tested in an afternoon after sitting idle. Its size is bounded by the run's span, so it stays small. Days are bucketed by UTC date, so an evening session in a UTC+2 or later timezone can straddle two buckets and read as two days of activity.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the cost profile (fetches every results page untrimmed, 100 cases per page vs. one small call), what data source it reads (per-execution timestamps filtered to this run), what is produced, and a real caveat about UTC-day bucketing splitting evening sessions. That is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the anti-pattern, then the cheaper alternative, then the escalation conditions. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information; length is justified by the risk of picking the wrong tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does: first and last execution, the span, distinct active days, daily breakdown, and never-executed cases. Combined with the cost and timezone caveats, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, including a full description of test_run ID format and include_daily_breakdown semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the value of the daily breakdown and mentions never-executed cases but adds no parameter-level format or constraint information beyond the schema.

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: reports when testing in a test run actually started and finished, and immediately separates that from createdAt/lockedAt semantics. An agent can distinguish it from get_test_run_details without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the wrong approach to avoid (comparing createdAt to lockedAt) and names the sibling alternative (get_test_run_details) with the exact conditions that favor each: null timestamps, distinct-day counts, daily breakdown, or never-executed cases. Nothing is left to inference.

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