mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_test_results

Retrieve paginated test results for a specific launch, including status, duration, message, trace, and timing details, to review outcomes and diagnose failures.

Instructions

List results of a launch: id, name, testCaseId, status, duration, message, trace, start, stop.

status is one of failed, broken, passed, skipped, unknown, in_progress.

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": {
      "launch_id": "<launch_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_test_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`size`	No
`sort`	No
`launch_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 disclosure burden. It never states that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, nor does it cover pagination defaults, result ordering, or any access requirements. It spends its words enumerating return fields instead of behavioral traits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it does not pad the text.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and for a simple filtered-list operation the description is close to sufficient. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the pagination and sort arguments an agent must supply are left entirely undocumented.

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 4 parameters, and the description only implicitly ties launch_id to 'of a launch.' It says nothing about page/size semantics, the meaning or accepted format of 'sort', or what the defaults yield, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 names a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List results of a launch.' That is enough to separate it from list_test_cases/list_launches and from the singular get_test_result, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of get_test_result for a single result, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the scope phrase 'of a launch.'

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