mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_test_plan

Retrieve a single test plan by ID to view its name, project, base RQL, test case count, and tree selection for inspection or reporting.

Instructions

Get one test plan: id, name, projectId, baseRql, testCasesCount, treeSelection.

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": "get_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`test_plan_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

C2.8/5.0

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 burden. It never says what happens when the plan is missing, whether permissions or project scoping apply, or anything about latency or caching; the field list mostly restates the output schema.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and nothing extraneous. It is efficient, though the field enumeration adds little because an output schema already exists.

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 not be explained, but the definition leaves gaps around missing-record behavior and id semantics for an otherwise simple single-parameter read tool.

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?

The single parameter test_plan_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it - no guidance on where the id comes from or whether it must belong to a project. One parameter at zero coverage pulls the score below the no-parameter baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one test plan', plus the fields returned. The singular 'one' differentiates it from list_test_plans, though that sibling is never named.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as list_test_plans. The only hint is the word 'one', which implies single-item retrieval rather than a search or list.

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