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

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_project

Read-only

Retrieve a TestIT project by its ID to access project details for test management workflows.

Instructions

Get a project by ID.

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_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

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 and cross-boundary nature are covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown, permissions, or what scope of project data is returned. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is as short as it can be, though that brevity is also the source of the definition's other gaps.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, so an agent can invoke it. It leaves unstated the return shape, error/not-found behavior, and whether the project must already be accessible, which for an openWorld read tool is a real but modest gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema gives it zero description coverage; the words 'by ID' confirm the id identifies the project but add no format, source, or constraint detail (numeric vs. slug, where to obtain it). Minimal compensation for the coverage gap, though the single trivial param limits the damage.

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 ('Get a project') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from create_project, delete_project, update_project and the list_* siblings. It stops short of any scope detail that would push it to 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?

No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus updates/listing or on prerequisites (does the caller need project membership?). The only implicit signal is that it is a by-ID read rather than a list, which the agent has to infer.

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