Fetch a test case by ID, optionally including its comments, custom properties, and attachment list.
Fetch one test case by id, optionally with its comments, custom properties and attachment list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | TestCase id | |
| include_comments | No | ||
| include_properties | No | ||
| include_attachments | No |
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 must bear the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a non-destructive fetch and that the three includes are optional, but it does not describe behavior for missing/invalid ids, default values of the boolean flags, or the shape of the returned test case.
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 efficient sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds the optionality. No filler or redundant wording.
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 description covers the core action and optional parameters, which is adequate for a simple getter. It is less complete about default include behavior and the response structure, and with no output schema or annotations the description leaves those details 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?
Schema coverage is only 25%; only case_id is described. The description compensates by explaining that the three boolean parameters correspond to optionally including comments, custom properties, and an attachment list, adding meaning not present in the bare boolean schemas.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch') and a precise resource ('one test case by id'), and it enumerates the optional data (comments, custom properties, attachment list). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling kiwi_get_test_cases, which fetches a collection, and from mutation tools like kiwi_update_test_case.
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 intended use is implied: retrieve a single test case by its id. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., kiwi_get_test_cases for multiple cases) or state when not to use this tool, leaving routing partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.