Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-testops

mcp-testops

by gribanoveu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reopen_launch

Reopen a closed launch to allow results to be added again, restoring it for further test result updates.

Instructions

Reopen a closed launch so results can be added again; the API answers 204.

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": "reopen_launch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
launch_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the state transition (closed → open) and that the API answers 204, which usefully tells the agent to expect no response body. It omits permissions required, whether the action is reversible, and what happens if the launch is not currently closed.

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?

One tight sentence with the action and its outcome front-loaded; the 204 note is appended without padding. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 204 note already covers the empty-response case. For a mutation tool with no annotations, however, the definition says nothing about failure modes or preconditions, which leaves meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter launch_id is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no guidance on what identifier is expected (which ID space, where to obtain it) beyond the bare schema property name.

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 ("Reopen a closed launch") plus the effect ("so results can be added again"), which makes it clearly the inverse of close_launch. It stops short of naming a sibling or distinguishing edge cases (e.g., deleted launches), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 phrase "so results can be added again" implies the triggering situation: the launch is closed and more results are needed. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (must be closed, not deleted) or when not to use it instead of other lifecycle tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools