mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_launch_statistic

Returns passed, failed, broken, and skipped counts for a launch in one request, so you avoid paging through individual test results.

Instructions

Status counts of a launch as {passed: n, failed: n, broken: n, skipped: n, ...}.

Cheaper than listing the results: one request instead of paging through them.

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": "get_launch_statistic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`launch_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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself. It usefully discloses the aggregation shape and the cost advantage (single request, no paging), but says nothing about permissions, behavior for a nonexistent launch_id, or whether counts reflect only finalized results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the result shape and followed by the efficiency rationale. Nothing is wasted, though the brace-notation return sketch partially duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is returned and why to choose it. Remaining gaps (error behavior, freshness of counts) are minor given the tool's simplicity and structured output.

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?

There is one parameter (launch_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it. The field's meaning is largely self-evident from the tool's purpose, so this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 names the resource (a launch) and the result (status counts) concretely, and illustrates the shape as {passed, failed, broken, skipped}. It's clearly a read/aggregation tool, though the verb is implicit and no sibling tool is named for contrast.

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?

"Cheaper than listing the results: one request instead of paging through them" gives a clear rule for preferring this over paginating result lists. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling (e.g. list_test_results) or stating exclusions, but the usage context is explicit.

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