Create a test run by supplying summary, plan, build, and manager details. Optionally include notes, tester, and planned schedule.
Create a test run. values needs: summary, plan_id (or plan), build_id (or build), manager_id (or manager). Optional: notes, default_tester_id, planned_start, planned_stop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that a test run is created and what fields are needed. It does not mention return value, error conditions, permissions, idempotency, or side effects beyond the creation itself.
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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the action before detailing field requirements. Every part adds value, and the backticked field references keep the structure readable.
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?
The input-side context is well covered, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description omits behavioral details such as what the API returns after creation or how failures surface. This leaves an agent needing external context for a complete call.
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 input schema provides no key-level descriptions and allows any additional properties, so schema coverage is effectively 0%. The description compensates strongly by enumerating required keys, acceptable aliases, and optional fields, giving the agent the exact information needed to construct the values object.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a test run.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kiwi_create_test_plan and kiwi_create_test_case, so an agent can tell what resource is being acted on.
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?
The description implies usage when creating a test run and clarifies required versus optional value keys, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no comparison with update/delete-run siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.