Retrieve the change history for a test case by providing its TestRail Case ID. See updates to fields and custom fields to track modifications.
Retrieves the change history of a test case including updates to fields and custom fields / テストケースの変更履歴（フィールドとカスタムフィールドの更新を含む）を取得します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caseId | Yes | TestRail Case ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Indicates read-only operation (retrieves history). No side effects mentioned, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient. No additional behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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?
Two concise sentences (English and Japanese) with no wasted words. Front-loaded with essential purpose.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description adequately covers what is retrieved. Could mention ordering or pagination, but not critical for basic usage.
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 parameter 'caseId' described as 'TestRail Case ID'. Description does not add meaning beyond schema. Baseline is 3 per scoring guidelines.
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 the verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'change history of a test case', including fields and custom fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like getCase (retrieves case details) or getResults (retrieves test results).
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. Does not mention context, prerequisites, or similar tools like getCase or getCaseFields. Agent must infer from name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.