mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_test_case

Update specific fields of an existing test case by sending only the arguments you pass; use clear=true to empty a field instead of leaving it unchanged.

Instructions

Update fields of a test case; only the arguments you pass are sent.

An empty string means "leave the field alone" unless clear=true, where an empty string clears the field. JSON-string arguments are the same as in create_test_case.

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": {
      "test_case_id": "<test_case_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_test_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`clear`	No
`duration`	No
`automated`	No
`status_id`	No
`tags_json`	No
`links_json`	No
`description`	No
`workflow_id`	No
`members_json`	No
`precondition`	No
`test_case_id`	Yes
`postcondition`	No
`scenario_json`	No
`test_layer_id`	No
`expected_result`	No
`custom_fields_json`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the single most non-obvious behavior: omitted/empty string fields are left untouched unless clear=true, which is genuinely valuable. It still leaves gaps an agent needs for a mutation tool — whether clearing works for the integer/boolean fields (which default to null rather than ""), permission requirements, and whether changes are auditable or reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the partial-update rule and the clear-flag exception in a single readable clause. Only the cross-tool deferral for JSON formats slightly dilutes it, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 core mutation semantics are covered. But for a 17-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves most field semantics and the clear-behavior for non-string fields unresolved, which is more than an agent should have to infer.

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% across 17 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It clarifies name/clear/description-family string semantics but defers all five JSON-string parameters (tags, links, members, scenario, custom fields) to "the same as in create_test_case," forcing the agent to open another tool, and says nothing about duration, automated, status_id, workflow_id, test_layer_id, or the required test_case_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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update fields of a test case") and immediately pins down the scope with "only the arguments you pass are sent," which is a partial-update contract rather than an overwrite. It also names create_test_case as the authoritative reference for JSON-string argument formats, which separates it from the create path.

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 the update-vs-create distinction and explains the clear/empty-string decision point, which is real usage guidance. However, it never states prerequisites (required permissions), when to prefer update over delete/recreate, or what happens when test_case_id is invalid, and no sibling alternative is named or excluded.

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