testit-mcp-server

list_shared_steps

Read-only

Lists shared steps in a TestIT project with optional filters for name, tags, states, priorities, sections, automation, and search to locate reusable steps.

Instructions

List shared steps of a project, with optional filters.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_shared_steps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Filter by (part of) work item name.
`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).
`tags`	No	Tag names.
`take`	No	Max number of items to return.
`states`	No
`orderBy`	No	Sort expression, e.g. "createdDate desc".
`isDeleted`	No	Search archived (deleted) work items.
`projectId`	No
`priorities`	No
`sectionIds`	No	Section UUIDs.
`isAutomated`	No
`projectName`	No
`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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no pagination semantics, no default page size, no behavior when filters are combined or when isDeleted is set. For a 16-parameter listing tool this is thin.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency given the parameter surface. A short second sentence on filtering/pagination would have earned its place.

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 16 optional parameters, no output schema, and a complex pagination/filter model, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call it correctly. It names the resource but omits the mechanics that matter for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 69%, and several parameters (states, priorities, projectId, projectName, isAutomated, sectionIds) carry no schema description. The description does not explain any of them, nor the page/size versus skip/take aliasing, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List shared steps of a project") plus the notion of optional filters, so an agent knows what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from siblings like list_shared_step_references or get_shared_step, which is why it stops short of 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?

"With optional filters" is the only hint about when to use it; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_shared_step_references, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must guess 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