testit-mcp-server

get_test_plan_summary

Read-only

Retrieves a test plan summary by UUID, including test point totals, defect counts, and planned versus spent duration. Use it to review plan status and progress.

Instructions

Test plan totals: test points (total/manual/automated/completed), defects, planned and spent duration.

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_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 contributes by enumerating the returned aggregates, which goes beyond the annotations. It says nothing about behavior when the plan is missing, whether values are computed live, or what units duration uses.

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 that lists the payload and contains no filler. It is slightly telegraphic — a bare noun phrase without a verb — but every word carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so by enumerating the specific aggregates. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only missing failure behavior and duration units keep it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage ('Test plan UUID'), so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about the id, but nothing is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 the resource (test plan totals) and enumerates exactly which aggregates are returned: test point counts broken into total/manual/automated/completed, defects, and planned vs. spent duration. That is far more specific than a restated name. It stops short of a verb and does not distinguish itself from get_test_plan (details) or get_test_plan_analytics, which an agent would need to separate.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative. The metric list only weakly implies 'use this for aggregates instead of get_test_plan,' leaving the routing decision to the agent's inference.

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

Deploy Server