testit-mcp-server

purge_test_plan

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently deletes an archived test plan and cannot be undone; archive the test plan before purging.

Instructions

Permanently delete an archived test plan. Irreversible; delete (archive) it first.

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": "purge_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Test plan UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description nonetheless adds real context beyond them: the operation is permanent and irreversible and only legal on an already-archived plan. It does not describe side effects on dependent runs or the failure mode when the plan is not archived.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the destructive nature and the precondition front-loaded before any elaboration. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations cover safety and idempotency, the definition supplies the essential prerequisite and irreversibility warning. Only minor gaps remain: no statement of what happens to dependent objects or of the error when the plan is still active.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Test plan UUID'), so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description mentions no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds nothing.

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 specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete an archived test plan') and constrains scope to archived plans, which separates it from the plain delete_test_plan sibling. It does not name that sibling outright, so differentiation is inferred from the state precondition rather than explicit routing.

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?

'Irreversible; delete (archive) it first' gives a concrete prerequisite and implies the prerequisite step is performed by another tool (delete_test_plan). No explicit when-not guidance is offered, and 'delete (archive)' conflates two distinct operations, leaving slight ambiguity about which call must precede this one.

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

Deploy Server