Record test execution results for many cases in one run by specifying run ID, case IDs, statuses, and optional comments.
Record results for many cases in one run (mirrors TestRail add_results_for_cases). For each item, finds the execution for {run_id, case_id}, sets its status, and optionally adds a comment. status may be a status id (number) or name (string).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| results | 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 provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the tool mutates executions by finding them via run_id and case_id, setting status, and optionally adding a comment. It also clarifies the accepted status forms. It does not discuss not-found or partial-failure behavior, but the core side effects are well disclosed.
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 compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and free of filler. The TestRail mirror reference is brief and useful for users familiar with that API.
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 2-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: inputs, selection logic, mutation behavior, and optional comment. It stops short of describing what happens when an execution is not found or whether the write is atomic, but these are reasonable omissions given the clarity of the described bulk-update flow.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the relationship between run_id and case_id, specifying that status can be an id or name, and noting that comment is optional. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types, though it does not fully document edge cases or expected result values.
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 and resource ('Record results for many cases in one run') and elaborates the exact behavior: find the execution for run_id/case_id, set its status, and optionally add a comment. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling kiwi_update_test_execution, which updates a single execution.
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 'many cases in one run' clearly signals when this bulk tool is appropriate, and the existence of kiwi_update_test_execution implies the single-case alternative. It does not explicitly name an alternative or provide a when-not-to-use condition, but the usage context is strong and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.