Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tuskr-mcp

tuskr-mcp

by Zapkid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_test_case

Retrieve detailed test case information by providing the app name and test case key (C-xxxx) or ID, with optional metadata inclusion.

Instructions

Get one detailed test-case by key (C-xxxx) or id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app_name": "<app_name>",
      "case_key_or_id": "<case_key_or_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_test_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_nameYes
case_key_or_idYes
include_metadataNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation but offers no details on side effects, error behavior, or returned data structure beyond the existence of an output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single 10-word sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient but lacks some detail that could be included without sacrificing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it fails to explain the optional include_metadata parameter or how this tool fits among many siblings, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 3 parameters (app_name, case_key_or_id, include_metadata) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only clarifies that case_key_or_id accepts a key format (C-xxxx) or id, leaving app_name and include_metadata unexplained.

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 clearly states the action 'Get', the resource 'one detailed test-case', and the unique identifier 'by key (C-xxxx) or id'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_test_cases and get_case_steps.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for retrieving a single test case, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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