Retrieve a test plan's test cases, execution steps, child plans, and recent run history. Use this to inspect test plan details and status.
A test plan with its test cases and their steps (in run order), child test plans, and recent test plan runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| runs | No | How many recent runs to include (default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as safe and non-destructive (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context about the response contents, such as run-ordered steps and recent runs, but it does not disclose recursion depth for child plans, pagination, or other edge behaviors. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information about what is included in the result, and the resource type is front-loaded.
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 read-only tool with only two simple parameters, the description gives a reasonable picture of the return payload despite the lack of an output schema. It covers the main elements an agent would need to decide whether to call this tool, though details like child-plan recursion and response limits are left unspecified.
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?
The schema already documents the 'runs' parameter ('How many recent runs to include (default 10)'), and the description only mirrors that concept with 'recent test plan runs.' The 'id' parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not compensate by explaining what it identifies. With 50% schema coverage and no compensating description detail, parameter meaning is only partially supported.
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?
The description clearly identifies the resource being returned—a test plan with its test cases, steps in run order, child test plans, and recent runs. It is distinct from generic siblings like read_query or read_get, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'reads/retrieves' and relies on the tool name to convey the action.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The description implies this is the tool for fetching test-plan details, but it never states when to choose it over a sibling like read_history or write_test_run, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.