Modify an existing test run by updating its name, description, included cases, milestone, or references using the run ID.
Update a test run
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Run name | |
| refs | No | Comma-separated references | |
| run_id | Yes | Test run ID | |
| case_ids | No | Case IDs | |
| description | No | Run description | |
| include_all | No | Include all test cases | |
| 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?
The tool has no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation name ('Update a test run') and provides no information about side effects, overwrite semantics, interactions between include_all and case_ids, or permission requirements. An agent gets no actionable behavioral context beyond the verb 'update'.
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 terse but borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. 'Update a test run' conveys almost no more than the tool name itself and does not earn its place by adding scope, constraints, or 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?
For a tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It fails to communicate when updating a run is appropriate, what fields might conflict (e.g., include_all vs case_ids), or what the mutation entails. The schema documents the parameters but the description does not contextualize them.
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 seven parameters already have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning or usage nuance, 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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('test run'), which distinguishes it from sibling run operations like add_run, close_run, delete_run, and get_run. It does not enumerate which fields are updatable, but the schema provides that detail, so the purpose is sufficiently clear.
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 alternatives such as add_run or close_run. The description does not state that the run must already exist, whether partial updates are supported, or when one would prefer update_run over other run-related tools. There are no exclusions or alternative hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.