Retrieve test execution results from TestRail using a test ID to view status, comments, and attachments for quality assurance tracking.
Get results for a test
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test_id | Yes | Test ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, or response format.
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 extremely short (5 words), which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place due to missing context.
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?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and many similar sibling tools, the description is minimally complete. It does not clarify the scope of results or relationship to other 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (one parameter with basic description 'Test ID'), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter.
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 states 'Get results for a test', which is a clear verb+noun combination, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_results_for_case and get_results_for_run, leaving ambiguity about scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no contextual cues, such as when to choose get_results over more specific result retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.