Create a new section in a TestRail project to organize test cases by suites and parent sections.
Creates a new section in a TestRail project / TestRailプロジェクトに新しいセクションを作成します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | TestRail Project ID | |
| name | Yes | Section name (required) | |
| description | No | Section description | |
| parentId | No | Parent section ID | |
| suiteId | No | Test Suite ID (required for multi-suite projects) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.6v0.12.1v0.19.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions creation but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or return values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 concise with a single sentence and translation, providing the core purpose efficiently. However, it could be more informative within the same length.
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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or constraints, leaving gaps for the AI agent.
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 descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, but does not contradict it.
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 tool creates a new section in a TestRail project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deleteSection, updateSection, and getSection.
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 versus alternatives like addCase or addSuite. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.