List tests in a TestRail run by run ID, with optional pagination and status filters to narrow results.
List tests in a run
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items (max 250, default 250) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default 0) | |
| run_id | Yes | Test run ID | |
| status_id | No | Comma-separated status IDs (1=Passed,2=Blocked,3=Untested,4=Retest,5=Failed) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List tests in a run' indicates a read operation but does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, status filtering, response contents, ordering, or any other runtime behavior an agent would need to anticipate.
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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the core operation and scope without wasting tokens.
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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related sibling tools, yet the description only gives a minimal phrase. It does not explain what a returned test looks like, how status filtering interacts with the output, or how this differs from getting results or cases for a run, leaving an agent under-informed.
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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter details. The description's 'in a run' reinforces run_id, but limit, offset, and status_id are already fully documented in the schema, so the description adds little beyond it.
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 ('tests') with a clear scoping clause ('in a run'), so an agent understands the basic operation. It is distinct from singular get_test and from run-centric tools like get_run/get_runs, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_cases or get_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 about when to choose get_tests over related tools such as get_cases, get_results, or get_results_for_run. The phrase 'in a run' implies some context, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.