Retrieve test execution statuses and their IDs to identify valid options before recording or updating an execution result.
List TestExecution statuses (PASSED / FAILED / BLOCKED / ...) with their ids. Needed before updating an execution result.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the status examples add useful context. Still, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, return format, or any quirks such as filtering limitations.
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 only two short sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, the status examples are immediately useful, and the workflow context is stated in the second sentence.
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 simple lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers enough: what is returned (statuses and ids) and why it is needed. The exact response shape and enum values remain implicit, but the description is adequate for tool selection and invocation.
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 documents the single optional query parameter with 100% coverage, including examples and how to list everything. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already handles that responsibility, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List TestExecution statuses ... with their ids.' The examples 'PASSED / FAILED / BLOCKED' plus 'ids' clarify what the tool returns. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like kiwi_get_case_statuses, but the 'TestExecution' qualifier disambiguates from related status-listing tools.
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 phrase 'Needed before updating an execution result' gives explicit context for when to call this tool, tying it to the update workflow. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as kiwi_get_case_statuses, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.