testit-mcp-server

delete_autotest

DestructiveIdempotent

Archives an autotest by UUID, making it unavailable to get operations and discoverable only via deleted search; no restore or purge exists.

Instructions

Delete (archive) an autotest. Archived autotests return 404 from get_autotest and can only be found via search_autotests with isDeleted=true; the API has no restore or purge for autotests.

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_autotest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Autotest UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description goes well beyond them: soft-delete/archive semantics, post-delete 404 from get_autotest, discoverability only via search_autotests with isDeleted=true, and the absence of restore or purge. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, the deletion semantics front-loaded, followed by the consequences. Every clause carries information; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Covers purpose, post-conditions, discoverability, and irreversibility for a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema. Slight gap only in not mentioning auth/prerequisites or error cases other than the 404 behavior.

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?

The single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as an autotest UUID, and the description adds nothing further about it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work and there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 ('Delete (archive) an autotest') and immediately clarifies the non-obvious semantics: deletion is archival, not removal. It also distinguishes the resulting behavior from get_autotest and search_autotests by name.

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?

Gives clear context for what happens after calling it and implies irreversibility ('no restore or purge'), which effectively tells the agent when this is appropriate. It does not explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., permissions), but for a single-purpose delete with no sibling alternative, the guidance is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server