cdash-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_failing_tests

Retrieve non-passing tests across all builds for a CDash project, helping you triage CI failures. Filter by date or test name and paginate to focus on relevant results.

Instructions

Find non-passing tests across all builds for a project. Most useful for CI triage.

Args:
    project: CDash project name (e.g. "PublicDashboard").
    date: Optional date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today.
    test_name: Optional filter to match test names containing this string.
    limit: Maximum number of tests to return (default 50, max 200).
    offset: Number of tests to skip (default 0). Use for pagination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`project`	Yes
`test_name`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure. It covers default behavior (date defaults to today), filter semantics (test_name is a substring match), and pagination via offset/limit. It stops short of stating side-effect/read-only guarantees explicitly, but the "Find" verb makes the intent clear.

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?

The description front-loads the core behavior and use case, then uses a tidy Args block. Every sentence adds value: defaults, constraints, and pagination are all included without fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a query-type tool: scope, all parameters, defaults, and pagination are covered, and the output schema handles return-value details. It does not explicitly route to siblings for single-build or summary use cases, which would strengthen completeness further.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does: project name with an example, date format and default, substring filtering behavior, limit with max value, and offset for pagination. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource: "Find non-passing tests across all builds for a project." This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_build_tests, which is build-specific, by emphasizing the cross-build scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Most useful for CI triage" gives a concrete use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the scope wording helps an agent infer when this is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server