testit-mcp-server

list_test_plan_test_runs

Read-only

Retrieve test runs for a specified test plan, with optional state filters and pagination, to review execution status and progress.

Instructions

List test runs of a test plan, optionally filtered by state.

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": "list_test_plan_test_runs"
  }
}

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".
`stopped`	No
`completed`	No
`inProgress`	No
`notStarted`	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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no disclosure of default ordering, default page size, or whether state filters are OR- or AND-combined. For a 12-parameter listing tool with no output schema, that leaves an agent guessing about behavior a single clause could have explained.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient but underwritten; the same sentence count could have carried the state-filter semantics or a sibling pointer at no structural cost.

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?

A 12-parameter tool with paging, sorting, free-text search and four state flags gets no explanation of return shape, pagination interplay (page vs skip, size vs take), or search semantics, and no output schema exists to compensate. The definition is not adequate for the complexity it fronts.

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 67%, and the four undocumented booleans (stopped, completed, inProgress, notStarted) are collectively identified by 'filtered by state', which is a genuine if minimal addition. However, it does not say how the flags interact or that id is the required test plan UUID, so most parameter meaning still lives in the schema.

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 a concrete verb and resource ('List test runs') plus the parent scope ('of a test plan'), which distinguishes it from the sibling variants list_test_runs, list_autotest_test_runs and list_test_point_test_runs. It stops short of naming any of those alternatives to make the distinction explicit.

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?

The phrase 'of a test plan' implies the situation in which to use it, and 'optionally filtered by state' hints at a narrow use case. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to sibling tools despite four other list_*_test_runs tools where routing matters.

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

Deploy Server