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

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_test_result_attachments

Read-only

Retrieve and list attachments for a specific test result by UUID, returning each attachment’s ID, name, type, and size for review or audit.

Instructions

List attachments of a test result (id, name, type, size).

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_result_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTest result UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields (id, name, type, size) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or behavior when a test result has no attachments.

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 short sentence with the resource scoped up front and the returned fields compactly parenthesized. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical could be dropped if an output schema existed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose and return shape, and annotations carry the safety semantics. The only gap is listing behavior such as pagination or truncation, which is minor for this complexity level.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the id as a test result UUID. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 attachments of a test result") and even names the returned fields, which separates it from get_test_result_attachment and upload/delete variants. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast with, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it needs a test result UUID to enumerate that result's attachments. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_test_result_attachment for a single file, and no stated prerequisites.

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