Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-testops

mcp-testops

by gribanoveu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

close_launch

Closes an Allure TestOps launch by launch ID, returning a 204 response and making the launch results read-only afterward.

Instructions

Close a launch; the API answers 204. Results are read-only afterwards.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "launch_id": "<launch_id>"
    },
    "name": "close_launch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
launch_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value: it discloses the 204 success response and the resulting read-only state, which tells the agent the mutation is effectively final. However, it omits permission requirements, what happens if the launch is already closed, and whether the operation is idempotent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short clauses, both front-loaded with the action first and the consequence second. The 'API answers 204' phrasing is slightly implementation-flavored but conveys useful success semantics without padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only consequence covers the main state transition an agent needs to know. The remaining gap is precondition and permission behavior for a mutation tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single required parameter, launch_id. The name is largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about its format, source, or whether the launch must exist and be open.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Close a launch'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like delete_launch or reopen_launch by name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not differentiating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb: call this to finalize a launch. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over delete_launch or reopen_launch, nor any prerequisite or precondition (e.g., launch must be open).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools