Retrieve all applications assigned to a specific test case by its ID, showing which software versions or variants need testing.
Get all applications for a test case. Retrieve all applications assigned to a specific test case using its unique identifier.
Applications represent different versions or variants of your software that need to be tested.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a semantic gloss on what an 'application' is (versions/variants of software under test), which is genuine added context, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or empty-set behavior.
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 first two sentences are largely redundant restatements of the same idea (get all applications for a test case), with only the third sentence adding new information. Front-loaded correctly, but a quarter of the text is wasted repetition.
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 simple single-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description says enough to invoke it correctly: it names the parent entity and clarifies the domain concept. The main shortfall is the undocumented nested parameter wrapper.
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 at 0% for the nested path object, so the description carries the burden. It says retrieval is 'using its unique identifier', which loosely maps to testCaseId but adds no format, type, or validity detail, leaving the nested 'path' wrapper undocumented.
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 applications for a test case', naming the parent entity (test case) that scopes the retrieval. It's clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_application_collection or get_application, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_application_collection for unfiltered listing, or get_test_case_test_runs for a related notion). Usage is only implied by the phrasing 'for a test case'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.