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

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_autotest_average_duration

Read-only

Retrieves the average duration in milliseconds of passed and failed results for a specified autotest UUID, helping analyze test performance and stability.

Instructions

Average duration (ms) of passed and failed results of an autotest.

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": "get_autotest_average_duration"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAutotest UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the unit (ms) and that results are split between passed and failed, but leaves ambiguous whether one value or two are returned and over what time window results are aggregated, which matters with no output schema.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key metric and unit are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the ambiguity about the returned values.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should clarify the response shape (single average vs. separate passed/failed averages) and the aggregation window. Those gaps are the main reason it does not reach a 4.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (id, autotest UUID) is fully documented in the schema. The description only implies the id scopes the computation to one autotest and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific computed metric (average duration in ms) scoped to a single autotest, which distinguishes it from get_autotest and get_autotest_results_history. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_autotest_results_history or get_test_results_statistics, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case from the metric name alone.

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