Retrieve test runs assigned to the authenticated user, with filters, sorting, pagination, and related data to locate the runs you need.
Get all assigned test runs. Retrieve all test runs assigned to the currently authenticated user.
Apply custom filters, sorting, and pagination to find the test runs you need. Include related data using the relations parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | 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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the user-scoping constraint, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, or response shape.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and the remaining sentences are short and purposeful. The first two sentences restate the same fact twice ('Get all assigned test runs' / 'Retrieve all test runs assigned to...'), which is minor redundancy.
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 read-only collection endpoint with a deeply nested but self-documenting schema and no output schema, the description covers the main axes an agent needs (scope, filtering, sorting, pagination, relations). It omits mention of the required project_id, but the schema marks that as required.
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?
The description names three capability families (filter, sort, pagination) and the relations parameter, which maps to schema fields. Schema description coverage is reported at 0% at the top level, and the description does not add syntax or format detail beyond naming the concepts, so it only partially compensates.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get all assigned test runs') and clarifies the scope is the currently authenticated user, which distinguishes it functionally from get_test_run_collection. It does not name that sibling explicitly, but the 'assigned to the currently authenticated user' qualifier makes the distinction inferable.
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?
It tells the agent that filters, sorting, and pagination can be applied and that relations can be requested, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition that routes the agent here versus get_test_run_collection, and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.