Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-testops

mcp-testops

by gribanoveu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_test_plan

Deletes a test plan while preserving its test cases; the API returns 204 on success.

Instructions

Delete a test plan; the API answers 204. The test cases themselves stay.

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_plan_id": "<test_plan_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
test_plan_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 disclose two useful facts: the API returns 204 (no content) and contained test cases are not deleted. It stops short of stating irreversibility, required permissions, or whether related results, steps, or launches are also affected.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most important side effect. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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 no prose, and the 204 mention is a bonus. However, for a destructive tool with zero annotations, the description should say whether the deletion is permanent and what else might be removed alongside the plan.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter test_plan_id has 0% schema description coverage, but its meaning is self-evident from the name and type. The description adds no constraint or format detail beyond that, which is acceptable for a one-param tool but offers no extra value.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a test plan") so the operation is unambiguous. It also clarifies scope against the closely-named delete_test_case sibling by noting "The test cases themselves stay," though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for removing a test plan. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (for example update_test_plan or close_launch), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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