Creates a new section in a TestRail project, optionally nested under a parent section. Use to organize test cases and runs.
Create a new section in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the section | |
| suite_id | No | Optional suite ID | |
| parent_id | No | Optional parent section ID (for nested sections) | |
| project_id | Yes | The ID of the project | |
| description | No | Optional description |
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, yet it only restates the action. It omits permissions required, side effects, whether nested sections are supported, error behavior, and what is returned. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too sparse for a five-parameter mutation tool, leaving critical behavioral context unaddressed.
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 tool's complexity (five parameters, a mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how sections relate to suites or projects, the effect of parent_id, or any return or error information.
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 input schema already documents all five parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new section in a project'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_section or delete_section beyond the verb, and no alternative is named.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It simply states the action without explaining the conditions under which an agent should select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.