mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_test_plan

Update selected fields of an existing test plan by sending only the arguments you want to change; use clear=true with an empty string to remove a field.

Instructions

Update fields of a test plan; 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. tree_selection_json: {"leafsInclude": [1001], "inverted": false}.

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_plan_id": "<test_plan_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`clear`	No
`tree_id`	No
`base_rql`	No
`test_plan_id`	Yes
`tree_selection_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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: only supplied arguments are sent, an empty string is a no-op by default, and clear=true flips that to an actual field wipe. What is missing is any note on permissions, whether clearing is reversible, or what null tree_id does.

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 update scope, and each sentence addresses a real ambiguity. The tree_selection_json example appears without stating what the keys mean, which costs a little clarity.

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 no explanation, and the trickiest semantics are covered. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage on 6 parameters, more is needed on tree_id/null handling and on the consequences of clearing fields.

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, and it explains the most dangerous ambiguity: the interaction between empty-string defaults and the clear flag, which applies to name, base_rql and tree_selection_json. It also gives the shape of tree_selection_json, though tree_id's nullable behavior and test_plan_id are left unexplained.

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 (update) and resource (test plan) plus the key scoping rule that only passed arguments are sent. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_test_case or create_test_plan, so it is clear but not 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 partial-update and empty-string semantics imply when this tool is appropriate (editing existing plans, touching a subset of fields), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer that create_test_plan is for new plans.

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