Retrieve a specific test result by its unique identifier. Include related test cases, runs, status, comments, and more in a single request.
Get a specific test result. Retrieve a specific test result using its unique identifier. Use the relations parameter to include associated data in a single request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| query | No |
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 safety/idempotency are covered. The description adds that relations can be fetched 'in a single request', implying call consolidation, but says nothing about return shape, error behavior for missing IDs, or whether 404s differ from empty results.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The middle sentence is a near-verbatim restatement of the first, which is wasted space but not damaging.
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 could usefully say what a test result contains or note the relation-expansion behavior in more detail. It covers the lookup and one optional parameter adequately for a simple single-record GET, but leaves return-content and error semantics unaddressed.
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 calls out the relations parameter and its purpose (including associated data in one request), which is useful framing. However the nested required `path.testResultId` object and the enum of includable relations are left to the schema, and with reported schema description coverage at 0% the description does not fully compensate.
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+resource ('Get a specific test result') and adds the identifier-based retrieval mechanism, which distinguishes it from collection siblings like get_test_result_collection and get_test_run_test_results. The second sentence largely restates the first, so it doesn't add differentiation beyond the opening line.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling retrieval tools (get_test_result_collection, get_test_run_test_results, get_issue_test_results). The only usage hint concerns the relations parameter, not tool selection, so an agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.