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

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_test_run_results

Read-only

Retrieve test results for a specific TestIT test run by UUID, enabling quick review of outcomes and status for analysis.

Instructions

Get test results for a test run.

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_run_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTest run UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result volume, pagination, whether tests in progress are included, or error behavior for an unknown UUID.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded scope or filter information because none exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry the burden of describing what comes back — result list shape, whether reruns or attachments appear, pagination. None of that is present, and no sibling differentiation is offered for a tool on a crowded test-results surface.

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 id parameter is documented as a 'Test run UUID', so the schema does the work. The description's 'for a test run' merely echoes that parameter without adding format or sourcing detail; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description does name a verb (get) and a resource (test results for a test run), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it essentially restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from close siblings such as get_test_result, search_test_results, list_test_suite_test_results, or get_test_run_statistics, leaving the agent unsure which result-fetching tool applies.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when this is preferred over search_test_results or list_test_suite_test_results, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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