Update a TestRail test case by providing its ID and changing fields like title, priority, type, estimate, or references.
Update a test case
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refs | No | Comma-separated references | |
| title | No | Case title | |
| case_id | Yes | Test case ID | |
| type_id | No | Case type ID | |
| estimate | No | Estimated time | |
| priority_id | No | Priority ID | |
| template_id | No | Template ID | |
| milestone_id | No | Milestone ID |
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. 'Update a test case' only indicates mutation; it does not explain partial-update semantics, required fields beyond case_id, whether unspecified fields are left untouched, or any side effects.
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, short sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is under-specified for an 8-parameter mutation tool; brevity here comes at the cost of useful context.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, no output schema, and eight parameters, the description is not complete enough. An agent needs to know whether this is a partial update, what happens to omitted fields, and how it differs from the bulk update sibling update_cases.
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 all parameters are already documented individually. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters interact or which are required for a meaningful update, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a test case'), which is specific enough for basic understanding. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'update_cases', which likely handles bulk updates.
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 use this tool versus alternatives like add_case or update_cases. The singular 'a test case' implies it updates one case, but this is not explicit, and no conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.