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

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_test_plans

Read-only

Lists test plans for a specified project, with options to filter by project ID or name and include archived plans.

Instructions

List test plans for a project.

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_test_plans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
isDeletedNoReturn archived (deleted) test plans.
projectIdNo
projectNameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 adds only the project scoping notion; it says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or what happens when no project filter is supplied.

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 short sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than economy.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering return shape, the description leaves the agent without key facts: whether filters are optional, how project selection works, and what the response contains. It is too thin for a listing tool with this much sibling overlap.

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 coverage is only 33%: isDeleted is documented in the schema while projectId and projectName are bare. The description's "for a project" gesture hints at project scoping but never explains the relationship between projectId and projectName (mutually exclusive? either?) or the semantics of the deleted-plans flag.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List test plans") with a scoping hint ("for a project"), so the basic action is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings such as list_test_plan_configurations or list_test_plan_tags, which an agent must choose between.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"For a project" implies the operating context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-an-alternative guidance, and no mention that all parameters are optional (so it may list plans across projects). There is no exclusion or prerequisite information.

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