s2docs MCP Server

by c-pompa

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

test_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a test run's record by ID, or returns the current active run when no ID is provided.

Instructions

One test run's record, or the current active run when no id is given.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	No	Run id; omit for the current (most recent active) run

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`lock`	No	The host lock this run holds (owner test:<id>), when it is still its own
`name`	Yes
`note`	No
`step`	No
`state`	Yes
`host_id`	No
`web_url`	No	Absolute URL of this run's page in the web UI (Activity page)
`created_at`	Yes
`project_id`	No
`started_at`	No
`updated_at`	Yes
`elapsed_sec`	No	Seconds since started_at (frozen at finished_at once terminal)
`finished_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and mutability are covered. The description adds the current-active-run fallback, but does not state behavior when no active run exists or when an unknown id is supplied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the two cases an agent needs to distinguish.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description is nearly complete for a one-optional-parameter lookup tool. Its only notable omission is behavior when there is no active run or the id is invalid.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the run_id schema description already says omission returns the current most recent active run. The description restates that behavior but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as a single test run record and explicitly distinguishes the no-id case as the current active run. It is clear enough to tell apart from list_test_runs, though it phrases the operation as a returned object rather than naming a retrieval verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a usage rule for the optional run_id: omit it to get the most recent active run. However, it does not state when to prefer this over siblings such as list_test_runs or test_start, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server