Retrieve test case statuses and their IDs to identify states like CONFIRMED or PROPOSED. Use optional filters to find specific statuses for your test management workflow.
List TestCase statuses (CONFIRMED / PROPOSED / ...) with their ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Kiwi ORM filter dict, e.g. {"name": "My Product"} or {"product_id": 3}. Omit or pass {} to list everything. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies read-only behavior and 'with their ids' hints at the return shape, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, permissions, pagination, or ordering. It is adequate for a simple enumeration tool 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, efficient sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and relevant examples. There is no filler or redundant content.
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?
This is a low-complexity list tool with one well-documented optional parameter and no output schema. The description combined with the schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could have been slightly more explicit about the full set of returned fields or alternative tools.
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 100% parameter documentation with a detailed description of the 'query' ORM filter and examples. Since the schema already covers parameter semantics well, the description does not need to add much; it adds no additional parameter-related detail.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('TestCase statuses'), including example enum values and the fact that IDs are returned. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like kiwi_get_execution_statuses.
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 tool's intended use is implied by 'List TestCase statuses', so an agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related status/type list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.