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

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_test_point_test_runs

Read-only

Retrieves the test runs that include a specified test point by its UUID, helping identify where a test point has been executed.

Instructions

Test runs that include a test point.

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_point_test_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTest point 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 the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing further. It does not say how many runs come back, whether results are paginated, what happens when the test point has no runs, or what fields each run carries.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the resource, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. A sentence of routing guidance would cost little and add much.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema the requirements are modest, yet the description omits return-shape cues, any differentiation from the many other list_test_runs variants, and any hint about empty results. What an agent needs in order to pick this tool confidently is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the test point UUID, establishing the baseline of 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about the identifier's format, source, or expected scope.

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 fragment 'Test runs that include a test point' identifies the resource (test runs) and the filter (a test point), but it is a noun phrase with no verb and largely restates the tool name. It distinguishes the tool weakly from siblings such as list_test_runs or list_test_plan_test_runs, which the agent must differentiate on its own.

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, no condition for choosing this tool over list_test_runs, list_autotest_test_runs, or list_test_plan_test_runs, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the correct route from the tool 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