Fetch test sections from a TestRail project or suite to see test case folders. Use pagination and suite_id to handle large or multi-suite projects.
List sections in a project/suite
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items (max 250, default 250) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default 0) | |
| suite_id | No | Suite ID (required for multi-suite projects) | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, the conditional need for suite_id, or what a response contains. The meaningful behavioral nuance about multi-suite projects is left entirely to the input schema.
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 very compact and contains no filler words. However, the slash in 'project/suite' is slightly ambiguous and could have been replaced with more explicit phrasing without adding much bulk.
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 and no annotations, the description is thin for a tool that has pagination parameters and a conditional suite_id requirement. An agent would not understand the multi-suite nuance or the expected response shape from this description alone. The schema compensates for parameter details but not behavioral completeness.
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 schema already documents all parameters and their defaults. The description adds only the hierarchical context 'in a project/suite', which is marginal and not required given the schema's completeness. A baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sections') with a scope ('in a project/suite'), making the primary function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_section, but the plural form and scope make the distinction reasonably 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_section, get_suite, or get_suites. The only contextual hint is 'in a project/suite', which is too vague to direct an agent on selecting this tool for multi-suite projects or single-suite projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.