testit-mcp-server

create_test_run_from_test_points

Creates a test run in a test plan from explicitly selected automated test points, mapping work items to configurations.

Instructions

Create a test run inside a test plan from explicit selectors: for each configuration, the work items whose test points to include. Like create_test_run_from_work_items, only AUTOMATED test points are accepted.

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": {
      "testPlanId": "<testPlanId>",
      "testPointSelectors": "<testPointSelectors>"
    },
    "name": "create_test_run_from_test_points"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`tags`	No
`projectId`	No	Project UUID (defaults to TESTIT_PROJECT_ID).
`testPlanId`	Yes
`description`	No
`projectName`	No
`testPointSelectors`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety picture is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact, the AUTOMATED-only acceptance rule, but omits permission requirements, failure/partial-failure behavior, and what is created or returned.

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 compact sentences with the core semantics front-loaded; the sibling comparison in the second sentence is a slight detour but brief and informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a non-idempotent create operation with 7 parameters, 14% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: what the call returns (e.g., the new test run's identifier), how optional metadata fields behave, and how rejected non-automated points are reported.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden; it partially compensates by clarifying that testPointSelectors pairs a configuration with a list of work item IDs whose test points are included. It says nothing about the optional fields (name, tags, description, projectId/projectName) or defaulting behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Create a test run inside a test plan") and explains the input shape ("for each configuration, the work items whose test points to include"), which distinguishes it from create_test_run_from_work_items by emphasizing explicit selectors.

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 names the sibling create_test_run_from_work_items and states a shared precondition ("only AUTOMATED test points are accepted"), but it never says when to choose this tool over that one, nor what happens when a non-automated test point is supplied.

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

Deploy Server