Skip to main content
Glama
testit-mcp-server

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich

purge_test_run

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently deletes an archived test run by UUID; archive the run first because deletion is irreversible.

Instructions

Permanently delete an archived test run. 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_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTest run UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

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 description adds real value by stressing 'Permanently' and 'Irreversible' and by disclosing the archived-state precondition. It does not say what happens on a non-archived run (error vs. silent purge) or whether recovery is possible after the call.

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 short clauses, with the permanent/irreversible warning and the precondition front-loaded ahead of any detail. No filler sentences, and the critical safety information appears first.

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 with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: permanence, irreversibility, and the archived precondition. The main gap is behavior on a not-yet-archived run and whether any recovery path exists.

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 parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the required UUID. The description adds no further meaning about id, such as whether it accepts a run key or short id. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Permanently delete an archived test run') and adds the qualifier 'archived', which separates it from a plain delete. It stops short of naming the sibling delete_test_run explicitly, so the contrast is conveyed only through the parenthetical '(archive)'.

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?

It states a clear precondition — the run must already be archived, and you should 'delete (archive) it first' — which effectively routes the agent to the softer delete path for live runs. It gives no explicit when-not to use it beyond that prerequisite, and no mention of restore_test_run as a recovery option.

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