Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tuskr-mcp

tuskr-mcp

by Zapkid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_test_runs

Retrieve test runs for a project, with optional filters by name and status, and pagination support.

Instructions

List test runs for a project (read-only).

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_test_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_nameYes
pageNo
page_sizeNo
name_containsNo
statusNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only adds a read-only hint, omitting details like pagination behavior, response volume, or rate limits.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. However, given the complexity of five parameters and an output schema, it could be slightly expanded without losing 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks information about pagination or filtering behavior, which are essential for a list tool with multiple filter parameters.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It only implies 'app_name' for the project, leaving the purpose of 'page', 'page_size', 'name_contains', and 'status' 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 verb (list), resource (test runs), and scope (for a project), with a read-only hint. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_test_run', which retrieves a single run.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_test_run' or when not to use it. The description simply states the function without context on appropriateness.

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