testit-mcp-server

list_test_runs

Read-only

Retrieve test runs for a project, with optional filters for status, test plan, created dates, search, sorting, and pagination.

Instructions

List test runs 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_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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	Include Stopped runs.
`completed`	No	Include Completed runs.
`projectId`	No
`inProgress`	No	Include InProgress runs.
`notStarted`	No	Include NotStarted runs.
`testPlanId`	No	Only runs of this test plan.
`projectName`	No
`searchField`	No	Field name to search in.
`searchValue`	No	Value to search for in searchField.
`createdDateTo`	No	ISO date-time.
`createdDateFrom`	No	ISO date-time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

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, but the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not explain the default filtering behaviour implied by the stopped/completed/inProgress/notStarted flags, the pagination model, or whether results are paginated at all – context an agent needs for a 16-parameter list tool.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted wording, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined structuring. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare operation name.

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 tool with 16 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and four closely related sibling list/search tools, one sentence is not sufficient. The agent is left to infer pagination style, default status filtering, and when to prefer this over search_test_runs or the scoped list variants.

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 88%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving ambiguities such as the interaction between page/size and skip/take, or whether omitting the status booleans excludes stopped or completed runs by default.

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 description pairs a verb ("List") with a resource ("test runs") and adds a scope ("for a project"), so the basic operation is identifiable. But the scope is misleadingly narrow – projectId is optional in the schema – and there is no differentiation from siblings such as list_autotest_test_runs, list_test_plan_test_runs, or search_test_runs, 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance is given beyond an implicit "list runs in a project". No exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives are provided, despite several sibling list/search variants that overlap heavily with this tool's purpose.

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

Deploy Server