Add multiple test results at once to a TestRail test run, simplifying bulk result entry for test management.
Add multiple test results for a test run (bulk operation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The ID of the test run | |
| results | Yes | Array of results to add |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that the operation is bulk. For a mutation tool it says nothing about required permissions, whether partial failures are tolerated, whether re-adding results duplicates them, or what state change occurs on the run; only the 'bulk' nature is disclosed.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the key scope cue ('bulk') is placed at the end where it reads clearly. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse for a bulk mutation.
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 schema is fully documented and there is no output schema to explain, so the structured data covers most of the calling mechanics. However, a bulk-mutation tool with no annotations leaves behavioral and side-effect context undescribed, so the definition is only minimally complete.
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 run_id and the results array with its nested fields. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 gives a specific verb (Add) and resource (test results) plus a scope qualifier (multiple / bulk operation) and ties it to a test run. This distinguishes it reasonably well from the singular testrail_add_result sibling, but it never names the sibling or explicitly contrasts the bulk vs single variants, so an agent must infer the routing.
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 phrase 'bulk operation' implicitly signals that this is the multi-result variant rather than the single-result tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives like testrail_add_result or testrail_add_results_for_cases. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.