Retrieve test cases linked to a work item, returning relation record IDs, test case IDs, subjects, and owners for traceability and management.
[Project Management] List test cases related to a work item. Returns relation records including relationRecordId (used for deletion), testcaseId, subject and owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workItemId | Yes | 工作项唯一标识 | |
| organizationId | Yes | 企业ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.60Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / organizationId / descriptionPrevious value: -"企业ID，可在组织管理后台的基本信息页面获取"New value: +"企业ID"v0.3.56Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns relation records with specific fields and implies a read-only list operation, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, or error behavior.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the domain, action, resource, and key return fields.
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?
For a simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. It lacks mention of pagination or result limits, but the low complexity means this is not a major gap.
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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema (workItemId and organizationId). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('test cases related to a work item'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_workitem_testcase_relation and delete_workitem_testcase_relation. It also names the key returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage by stating it lists test cases related to a work item, and the mention of relationRecordId 'used for deletion' hints at a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.