mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_launches

Lists project launches with IDs, names, closed and creation dates, plus status statistics to track test run outcomes and progress.

Instructions

List launches of a project: id, name, closed, createdDate, statistic.

statistic holds status counts as the API returns them, e.g. {passed, failed, broken, skipped, unknown} or StatisticDto with inProgress, pending and total; it is absent when the launch shape carries none. The API answers with two different launch shapes; both are read into this summary. project_id defaults to TESTOPS_PROJECT_ID; sort defaults to "created_date,DESC".

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_launches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`size`	No
`sort`	No
`search`	No
`filter_id`	No
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the definition carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value: it discloses that the API returns two different launch shapes, explains what the statistic field contains and when it is absent, and states effective defaults for project_id and sort. It does not state the operation is read-only, nor anything about pagination behavior, error cases, or permissions.

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?

The purpose and key semantics are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information about the return shape or defaults. Minor structural drag from the mid-sentence line break and the somewhat verbose enumeration of statistic variants, but nothing is padded.

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, and the description reasonably spends its space on the two-shape quirk and defaults instead. However, for a 6-parameter, annotation-free tool with zero schema coverage, leaving page, size, search, and filter_id semantically unexplained is a real gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains two of them (project_id's env-var default and sort's effective default of "created_date,DESC"); page, size, search, and filter_id are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 definition opens with a concrete verb and resource ("List launches of a project") and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, closed, createdDate, statistic), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_launch or get_launch_statistic, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 "of a project" plus the note that project_id defaults to TESTOPS_PROJECT_ID, which tells the agent it can call this without specifying a project. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_launch/get_launch_statistic, and no exclusion conditions.

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