Retrieve a test case folder by its unique identifier to return its name, description, and parent folder details.
Get a specific folder. Retrieve a specific test case folder using its unique identifier. This endpoint returns all details of the folder, including its name, description, and parent folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds some value by enumerating returned fields (name, description, parent folder), but says nothing about authorization needs or behavior when the folder is missing.
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?
Three sentences where two would suffice: 'Get a specific folder' largely restates the tool name and is immediately re-explained by the second sentence. The return-value sentence is the only one carrying new information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (name, description, parent folder), which is the main missing piece an agent would need. Annotations cover safety, so the remaining gap is only the not-found/error behavior.
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 reported as 0% at the outer level, though the nested testCaseFolderId property carries a description. The description's 'using its unique identifier' reinforces that the argument is a primary key, but adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific folder', 'test case folder') and clarifies scope as a single-folder retrieval by unique identifier. It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling get_folders_collection, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 phrase 'using its unique identifier' implies this is the single-item counterpart to a collection listing, which is implicit usage guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus get_folders_collection, nor mentions prerequisites or failure cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.