testit-mcp-server

get_test_plan_history

Read-only

Retrieve the change history of a TestIT test plan by UUID, with pagination, sorting, and search filters for auditing updates.

Instructions

Change history of a test plan.

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_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Test plan UUID.
`page`	No	1-based page number; alternative to skip. Uses "size" (default 50).
`size`	No	Page size for "page"; alias of take.
`skip`	No	Number of items to skip (offset).
`take`	No	Max number of items to return.
`orderBy`	No	Sort expression, e.g. "createdDate desc".
`searchField`	No	Field name to search in.
`searchValue`	No	Value to search for in searchField.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

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 the title-level concept. It does not say what a history entry contains (old/new values, author, timestamp), whether results are newest-first by default, or how the plan-level history relates to suite/case-level changes.

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 fragment with zero filler; nothing needs trimming. It is arguably too terse to be structurally useful, but no wording is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paginated, searchable, sortable history endpoint with no output schema, the description says nothing about the shape of returned records or default ordering behavior, so an agent cannot predict what it will get back. The only thing conveyed is the general category of data.

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% across all 8 parameters, so paging, ordering, and search semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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?

"Change history of a test plan" names the resource and the specific aspect returned (historical changes), which cleanly separates it from get_test_plan (current state) and from the other history tools for work items/autotests. It lacks an explicit verb (list/get) but the returned object is unambiguous.

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_test_plan, get_work_item_history, or get_test_plan_analytics, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a valid plan UUID or permissions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the four-word phrase.

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

Deploy Server