QA Studio MCP Server

get-test-run

Retrieve complete details of a specific test run by providing the project ID and test run ID. Get insights into test status, pass/fail counts, and execution history to analyze quality metrics.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific test run

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "testRunId": "<testRunId>"
    },
    "name": "get-test-run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID
`testRunId`	Yes	The test run ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get detailed information', which is vague. It does not clarify if the operation is read-only, what data is returned (e.g., test steps, results), or any potential side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could be improved by adding a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and the tool's purpose (getting details), the description should explain what the response includes. It does not, leaving ambiguity about the tool's output. Sibling tool 'get-test-results' suggests possible overlap, but no differentiation is provided.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions (projectId and testRunId). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Since schema is sufficient, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific test run'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list-test-runs' (list vs. single) and 'create-test-run' (create vs. read). However, it could be more specific about what 'detailed information' includes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list-test-runs' or 'get-test-results'. The description does not mention any contextual cues or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server