get_test_historyRetrieves run-by-run status, duration, and messages for tests matching a full or partial test ID, optionally limiting results to the last N runs.
Run-by-run history (status, duration, message) for tests whose id contains the query, e.g. 'apply_coupon' or 'ui.checkout'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test | Yes | Full or partial test id | |
| last_n | No | Only consider the most recent N runs (default: all runs) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's value lies in disclosing the return shape — status, duration, message per run — which matters since there is no output schema. It does not state ordering, pagination, or what happens when the substring matches multiple tests.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return fields come first and the matching rule plus examples follow. Nothing is wasted.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, and return fields — enough to call it correctly. Gaps are minor: run ordering, multi-match behavior, and empty-result behavior are unstated.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description earns a bump by clarifying that matching is substring-based ('id contains the query') and supplying concrete id examples like 'apply_coupon' and 'ui.checkout'. It still says nothing about last_n, which the schema handles alone.
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 resource (run-by-run history of a test) and enumerates what each row contains (status, duration, message), plus the filter semantics ('tests whose id contains the query'). It is clearly distinct from get_run_summary and list_runs by being per-test across runs, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'show me this test's recent results', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to get_run_summary / find_flaky_tests for related questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.