mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_projects

Retrieve TestOps projects ordered by name, with optional name search, favorite-only filtering, and pagination to find and review project details.

Instructions

List TestOps projects, ordered by name.

search: optional substring of the project name; favorite: only starred projects. page starts at 0, size is capped at 100. Returns {content, totalElements, totalPages, number} with id, name, abbr, isPublic, isVersioned, launchCount, automationPercent per project.

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_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`size`	No
`search`	No
`favorite`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses ordering by name, pagination starting at page 0 with size capped at 100, and the return envelope and per-project fields. It does not discuss read-only safety, permissions, or rate limits, but it covers the key non-parameter behavior for a listing tool.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then filters, pagination, and return shape. The return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but the overall wording is efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly: scope, ordering, filters, pagination, and return envelope. It could be more complete by explicitly stating read-only behavior or when to prefer a different project-retrieval tool, but nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines 'search' as an optional project-name substring, 'favorite' as starred-only filtering, 'page' as starting at 0, and 'size' as capped at 100. All four parameters gain meaningful semantics beyond their bare titles and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List TestOps projects, ordered by name.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as list_launches, list_test_cases, and get_project by resource and plural/list operation.

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?

The description implies usage through its filters ('search' for name substring, 'favorite' for starred projects), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project or other list_* tools. Guidance is adequate but leaves the agent to infer selection criteria.

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