testit-mcp-server

delete_test_run

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes (archives) a test run by ID, removing it from active TestIT test management workflows; restore it to undo or purge it for permanent removal.

Instructions

Delete (archive) a test run by ID. Use restore_test_run to undo or purge_test_run to remove permanently.

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_test_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Test run UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the operation is an archive (recoverable) and by pointing to the restore path, which an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations. It does not state permission requirements or the response shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core action and its archive qualifier front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what an agent must know to call it correctly and safely: the target, the archive semantics, and the recovery path. The only minor gap is what the call returns or how to confirm success, which matters little for a simple archive operation.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as a test run UUID, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes 'by ID' without adding format, validation, or lookup behavior, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description gives a specific verb plus resource ('Delete (archive) a test run') and immediately disambiguates the semantics of 'delete' as archiving rather than permanent removal. It also names purge_test_run and restore_test_run, so an agent can distinguish this from its closest siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the selecting condition for the alternative tools explicitly: use restore_test_run to undo the archive, or purge_test_run for irreversible removal. That is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-another rule rather than implied usage.

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

Deploy Server