mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_test_case

Deletes a test case via Allure TestOps API, moving it to the trash; use force=true to remove cases with run results and their scenario.

Instructions

Delete a test case; the API answers 202 and moves it to the trash.

Without force a case that has run results may stay; force=true deletes it anyway, together with its scenario. Restoring a case is not exposed as a tool.

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": {
      "test_case_id": "<test_case_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_test_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No
`test_case_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses the 202 status, that the case goes to trash, that deletion may silently not happen without force, and that force cascades to the scenario. It leaves out permission requirements and any error behavior for a missing or foreign test_case_id.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then the force caveat. The phrasing "may stay" is slightly vague about when exactly a delete is skipped, which costs a bit of precision.

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?

Return values need not be described since an output schema exists, and the description covers the destructive semantics, conditional behavior and irreversibility reasonably well. Missing are failure modes such as nonexistent IDs or permission errors, which matter for a delete tool with no annotations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and it substantially does for force, explaining the skip-on-results behavior and the cascade to the scenario. test_case_id is left implicit, which is acceptable for an obvious identifier but is still an unstated assumption.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a test case") and immediately adds the observable outcome (202 response, moved to trash). The resource is unambiguous against siblings like delete_test_plan or delete_launch, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear conditional guidance for the force flag: without it a case with run results may persist, with force=true it is deleted along with its scenario. It also closes off a follow-up path by noting restore is not exposed as a tool. It stops short of naming any alternative tool or prerequisite for the non-force path.

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