Submit test results for multiple cases in a run at once. Provide run ID and an array of results with status, comment, defects, elapsed time, and version for each case.
Bulk add results by case for a run
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | Test run ID | |
| results | Yes | Array of results by case |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Bulk add', a mutation, but does not mention whether results are appended or overwritten, what permissions are required, whether partial failures are possible, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant wording and the core information front-loaded. It could contain more detail, but it is not padded or unstructured.
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?
The schema is rich and describes every parameter, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain behavior, return value, error cases, or any restrictions. It is adequate for a straightforward bulk write with a self-explanatory schema, but noticeable gaps remain.
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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds little beyond confirming the operation is bulk and keyed by case, which weakly connects to the run_id and results array. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clear action ('Bulk add'), a specific resource ('results'), and the scope ('by case for a run'). It distinguishes itself from singular add_result_for_case by emphasizing 'bulk' and 'by case', though it does not explicitly differentiate from add_results.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like add_result, add_result_for_case, or add_results. The context is only implied by 'Bulk add... by case', and there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.