Retrieve test runs for a specific project, with pagination controls, to review execution history and results in QA Studio.
List test runs for a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 50) | |
| offset | No | Number of results to skip (default: 0). Must be a multiple of limit so it maps to a Studio page. | |
| projectId | Yes | The project ID to list test runs for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of results to skip for pagination (default: 0)"New value: +"Number of results to skip (default: 0). Must be a multiple of limit so it maps to a Studio page."v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about ordering, pagination semantics, or result shape. The one interesting behavioral constraint (offset must be a multiple of limit to map to a Studio page) lives only in the schema, not the description.
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 zero waste. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise, since the brevity leaves real gaps for an agent.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, but the tool is a simple paginated list with all three parameters documented in the schema, so an agent can call it correctly. The missing pieces are pagination/ordering behavior and when to prefer get-test-run, which keeps it from being complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, and projectId are already fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as default sort order or what a 'page' means in practice.
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 verb (List) and resource (test runs) with scoping (for a project), which is enough to distinguish it from the get/create siblings by intent. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the list-vs-single-vs-create distinction is inferable from the verb alone.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get-test-run (single run) or list-projects, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid projectId or permissions. The only usage signal is the required projectId, which the schema already enforces.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.