mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_statuses

Retrieve test statuses with IDs, names, and colors, optionally filtered by workflow, to get the status_id needed when creating test cases.

Instructions

List test statuses (id, name, color) - they give status_id for create_test_case.

workflow_id narrows the answer to one workflow. The endpoint takes no project id: statuses are defined by workflows, not by projects.

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_statuses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`size`	No
`sort`	No
`workflow_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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the endpoint takes no project id and that workflow_id scopes results, but it does not explain pagination, sorting behavior, or ordering despite the page, size, and sort parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded: purpose and returned fields come first, followed by the workflow scoping rule and the no-project-id clarification. Every sentence adds useful information without filler.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and important workflow scoping. However, it leaves pagination and sort parameters unexplained, which is a clear gap given the 0% schema description coverage.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for all four parameters. It only explains workflow_id meaningfully; page, size, and sort are not described beyond their schema names 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 states a specific verb and resource: list test statuses, including the returned fields id, name, and color. It also distinguishes this endpoint from project-scoped listing by explicitly saying it takes no project id and that statuses are defined by workflows.

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?

The description gives a clear usage context: the statuses provide status_id for create_test_case, and workflow_id narrows results to one workflow. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternatives, but the intended use is clear.

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