Fetches every test plan assigned to a specified TestRail project by its project ID. Provides a complete list for review and management directly from AI clients.
Retrieves all test plans for a specified TestRail project / 指定されたTestRailプロジェクトの全テストプランを取得します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | TestRail Project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states it retrieves test plans, but omits details like whether results are paginated, ordered, or filtered by active status. The simple retrieval behavior is implied but not explicitly guaranteed.
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 sentences, zero waste. English and Japanese versions are concise and front-loaded with the action.
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 there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return format. For a list-all tool, it might be adequate, but it lacks specifics on ordering or limits. Sibling tools are many, so some comparison would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters (1 required). The description adds no semantic value beyond restating the project parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents 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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieves', resource 'all test plans', and scope 'for a specified TestRail project'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getPlan (singular) or addPlan (create).
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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like getPlan, getRuns, or search functions. The context includes over 30 sibling tools, but the description gives no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.