mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_test_cases

Create a test launch with one manual result per selected test case using case IDs or a saved filter, and optionally set assignees, tags, project, or release.

Instructions

Create a launch with one manual result per selected test case.

Select the cases with one of: ids (comma separated or JSON array of tree leaf ids, becomes selection.leafsInclude), leafs_include (explicit JSON array) or filter_id (saved filter); ids and leafs_include are mutually exclusive. The API field is leafsInclude: there is no leafIds and no rql in the selection. assignees: comma separated user logins; tags_json: [{"id": 3, "name": "regress"}]. Returns {ok, launchId, name, projectId}.

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_name": "<launch_name>"
    },
    "name": "run_test_cases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No
`assignees`	No
`filter_id`	No
`tags_json`	No
`project_id`	No
`release_id`	No
`launch_name`	Yes
`leafs_include`	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 discloses that a launch and one manual result per selected case are created, and it gives the return shape, but it omits permissions, launch state, and other side-effect details.

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 front-loaded and dense with useful details, with little wasted wording. The parenthetical API-field clarification is helpful, though the overall text is somewhat packed.

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?

The tool is complex with eight parameters and no annotations, and the description covers the selection logic and return value well. It still leaves project_id and release_id semantics unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a launch-creating tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for ids, leafs_include, filter_id, assignees, and tags_json, including formats and mutual exclusivity, but it does not explain project_id or release_id.

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: create a launch with one manual result per selected test case. This clearly distinguishes it from create_launch and add_test_result by explaining that it combines launch creation with result generation.

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?

It explains how to select test cases using ids, leafs_include, or filter_id, including mutual exclusivity. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of create_launch or add_test_result, so tool-level guidance is only implied.

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