Get test suite details and test count by providing the suite's sys_id or name. Use this to verify suite composition and support reporting.
Get details of a test suite including test count
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id_or_name | Yes | Test suite sys_id or name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get details' is consistent and adds little. It does mention 'including test count,' which is a useful detail about the response content, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits or potential limitations. No contradiction found.
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?
Description is one short sentence (8 words) and front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no filler.
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?
Despite no output schema, the tool is simple (1 param, read-only) and the description communicates the core return value (test count) plus general suite details. Given the annotations and schema coverage, it's mostly complete, though it could specify what other details are included or how to use the identifier.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for sys_id_or_name. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get details of a test suite including test count' with a specific verb (get) and resource (test suite). It distinguishes from siblings like get_atf_test (test, not suite) and list_atf_suites (list vs get) by its focus on single suite details with a count.
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 vs alternatives such as list_atf_suites or get_atf_suite_result. The description only states what it does, not what distinguishes it or when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.