testit-mcp-server

get_test_result_reruns

Read-only

Retrieves all attempts (original plus reruns) for a TestIT test result by UUID, returning run number, outcome, and status to show the complete execution history.

Instructions

All attempts of a test result (original + reruns) with runNumber, outcome and status. The original result keeps its status; later attempts are separate results.

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_result_reruns"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description adds domain behavior instead: it discloses that the original keeps its status while later attempts are separate results, which is non-obvious semantics an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of ordering, pagination or result-limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the one non-obvious rule. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape; it names three fields but not the container (list vs. object), ordering, or whether attempt identity is included. Adequate for a simple read, but incomplete for a tool whose whole purpose is enumerating multiple results.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Test result UUID'), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no extra detail about the id, such as whether it is the original result's id or accepts a rerun's id — arguably a meaningful ambiguity left unaddressed.

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 the specific resource precisely: all attempts (original + reruns) of a test result, with the fields runNumber, outcome and status. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_test_result by scoping to 'all attempts', though it never names that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for seeing rerun history versus a single result. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as get_test_result.

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

Deploy Server