Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
testit-mcp-server

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_attachment

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete an unlinked attachment by UUID; linked attachments cannot be removed because TestIT returns a 422 error.

Instructions

Delete an attachment that is not linked to any entity (TestIT returns 422 for linked ones).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAttachment UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real addition is the failure mode (TestIT returns 422 for linked attachments), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permanence or the response body, leaving that to the annotations.

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?

One tight sentence with the operative constraint front and center and the error code tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical could have been phrased as a standalone guard for faster scanning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers what matters: what it removes, the precondition that causes failure, and the concrete error signal. The main omission is whether the deletion is recoverable, which the destructive annotation largely implies.

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 100% with a single documented 'id' field, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format, sourcing, or ID-resolution hints beyond what is already structured, making baseline 3 the correct landing spot.

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 ('Delete an attachment') and adds a scoping constraint ('not linked to any entity') that implicitly separates it from delete_test_result_attachment, which handles linked attachments. It does not name that sibling outright, so it falls short of the top mark.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The precondition plus the 422 note gives a clear when-not-to-use signal: linked attachments cannot be removed here. It stops short of pointing the agent at an alternative tool for those cases, so guidance is clear but not fully routed.

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