Skip to main content
Glama
QAStudio-Dev

QA Studio MCP Server

by QAStudio-Dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get-test-results

Retrieve paginated test results for a specific QA Studio test run, with optional status filtering to review passed, failed, skipped, blocked, retest, or untested cases.

Instructions

Get test results for a specific test run. Pass page to retrieve later pages.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoResults page to fetch (default: 1). Use pagination.totalPages to request later pages.
statusNoOptional filter by status
projectIdYesThe project ID
testRunIdYesThe test run ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / page
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Results page to fetch (default: 1). Use pagination.totalPages to request later pages.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are paginated and that later pages are fetched via the page parameter, but says nothing about read-only safety, authorization needs, ordering, or result shape.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the pagination note second. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With 4 parameters, a status enum, and no output schema, the description is thin: it never indicates what a 'test result' contains or how the totalPages metadata referenced in the schema is surfaced. The complete parameter schema compensates partially, but the read-side behavior is under-described.

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 description coverage is 100%, so projectId, testRunId, page, and status are already explained in the schema (including the pagination.totalPages hint). The description only repeats the page semantics, adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Get test results for a specific test run'), which clearly separates it from the sibling get-test-run (which fetches the run itself). The purpose is unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives one concrete usage instruction ('Pass page to retrieve later pages'), which is useful for pagination, but offers no guidance on when to use this versus get-test-run or the status filter, and no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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