Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-testops

mcp-testops

by gribanoveu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_project

Retrieve a single Allure TestOps project by ID to view its name, abbreviation, visibility, versioning, launch count, and automation percentage.

Instructions

Get one project by id: id, name, abbr, isPublic, isVersioned, launchCount, automationPercent.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about error/not-found behavior, permissions, or what happens with an invalid or foreign project id. The field enumeration largely duplicates the existing output schema rather than adding behavioral context.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with zero filler. The trailing field list is arguably redundant given the output schema, but it does not impede comprehension.

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?

For a simple read-only single-parameter tool with an output schema, the definition covers the essentials of what is fetched and returned. It stops short of covering failure modes and sibling selection, which are the remaining gaps an agent would care about.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter is a single integer named Project Id. The phrase "by id" confirms the argument is the project identifier and that exactly one project is returned, but it adds no guidance on where the id comes from, format, or whether abbreviations are acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Get one project by id") and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows this is a singular fetch rather than a list. It does not name the sibling it contrasts with (list_projects), but the singular scope makes the distinction inferable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus list_projects or any other retrieval path, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only guidance is the implicit "by id" scoping, which is not a usage policy.

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