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

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_test_plan

Read-only

Retrieve a TestIT test plan by its UUID to view its details and structure for test management and planning tasks.

Instructions

Get a test plan 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_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTest plan UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what happens for an unknown ID, whether the plan may be soft-deleted/purged, or what scope of data is returned. For a lookup tool with a rich family of alternatives, this leaves behavioral gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no ambiguity. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is not a conciseness problem.

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?

The tool is simple — one required parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations carrying the read-only profile — so the description is minimally sufficient to call it. However, given a dense sibling set of other test-plan readers, the absence of any routing hint leaves a real gap for an agent choosing among them.

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 parameter is fully documented as a "Test plan UUID". The description's "by ID" merely restates the schema, adding no format, sourcing, or constraint detail, so the baseline 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 verb and resource ("Get a test plan") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish this from siblings like get_test_plan_summary, get_test_plan_analytics, or get_test_plan_history, which is what keeps it from 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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus the numerous sibling readers. The only implicit cue is "by ID", which suggests a single-entity lookup rather than list or analytics, but the agent must infer that entirely from the name and phrasing.

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