Delete a TestRail test run by ID to remove obsolete or incorrect runs from test management.
Delete a test run
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The ID of the test run to delete |
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. 'Delete' does imply a destructive operation, but the description never states whether it is permanent or recoverable, what happens to associated results/cases, or what permissions are required.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, so it earns credit for efficiency without reaching the top of the scale.
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 destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the permanence of the operation and the effect on related data. It omits all of this, leaving real gaps an agent would need to call it safely.
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%, with run_id fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or range detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a test run'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from closely related siblings like testrail_close_run or testrail_update_run, which matters because 'close' and 'delete' are easy to conflate on a run resource.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when deletion is appropriate versus closing a run, and no prerequisites or alternatives named. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.