Skip to main content
Glama
SmartBear

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

QMetry: Fetch Test Suite Details

qmetry_fetch_test_suite_details
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full QMetry test suite details including custom UDF field values by test suite ID. Ideal for inspecting suite metadata before updating UDF values.

Instructions

Fetch full detail data for a QMetry test suite including UDF field values

Toolset: Test Suites

Parameters:

  • projectKey (string): Project key - unique identifier for the project (default: "default")

  • id (number) required: Test Suite ID (numeric ID)

  • scope (string): Scope of the operation - defines the context for data retrieval. Common values: 'project' (default), 'folder', 'release', 'cycle'. Applies to any entity type being fetched or operated upon. (default: "project")

Output Description: JSON object with full test suite details including UDFTypeData map and all UDF field values

Use Cases: 1. Get UDF field values for a specific test suite 2. Retrieve full test suite metadata including custom fields 3. Inspect test suite details before updating UDF values

Examples:

  1. Fetch details for test suite with ID 142013

{
  "id": 142013
}

Expected Output: Full test suite detail object with UDFTypeData, UDF field values, and metadata

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTest Suite ID (numeric ID)
scopeNoScope of the operation - defines the context for data retrieval. Common values: 'project' (default), 'folder', 'release', 'cycle'. Applies to any entity type being fetched or operated upon.project
projectKeyNoProject key - unique identifier for the projectdefault

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.40.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / baseUrl
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The base URL for the QMetry instance (must be a valid URL)",
-  "format": "uri",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Addedv0.37.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the response includes UDFTypeData and all UDF field values, and it clarifies this is a fetch-only detail operation. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary and organized into useful sections, but the Parameters section duplicates schema information and the Toolset line adds little. It is structured but somewhat longer than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple fetch operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, lists concrete use cases, and provides a practical example with expected output. It lacks only deeper return-structure detail, which would be useful but is not critical for this simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, defaults, and required status, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'Parameters' section mostly repeats the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning, 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('full detail data for a QMetry test suite'), and a distinguishing focus ('including UDF field values'). This distinguishes it from sibling list-style tools like qmetry_fetch_test_suites and detail fetch tools for other entity types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Use Cases' section gives clear context for when to invoke the tool: retrieving UDF values, fetching full metadata, and inspecting details before updating UDFs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools