List all test statuses available in TestRail, providing the set of valid states for test cases and results. Use this to reference status IDs when updating or filtering tests.
List available test statuses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List'), but it adds no detail about ordering, permissions, pagination, or the precise meaning of 'test statuses'. This is minimally adequate but not rich.
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 four-word sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly identifies the operation and object, making it ideal for a simple tool.
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 description is sufficient for a trivial zero-parameter list operation, but the existence of the closely named sibling 'get_case_statuses' introduces ambiguity that is not resolved. Without an output schema, slightly more detail about what 'test statuses' includes would improve 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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('available test statuses'), so an agent can understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling tool 'get_case_statuses', which prevents a higher score.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_case_statuses. There are no mentions of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.