testit-mcp-server

reset_test_points

DestructiveIdempotent

Resets specified test points in a test plan to NoResults, discarding their existing results.

Instructions

Reset the given test points of a test plan back to NoResults (their results are discarded).

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>",
      "testPointIds": "<testPointIds>"
    },
    "name": "reset_test_points"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Test plan UUID.
`testPointIds`	Yes	Test point UUIDs (see list_test_suite_test_points / search_test_points). Must not be empty.

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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real information beyond them: the postcondition is the specific NoResults state and, critically, that existing results are discarded — i.e. what data is lost.

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?

One sentence, effect stated first, with the destructive consequence in a tight parenthetical. No filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition covers target, postcondition and data loss. It does not say what the call returns (the reset points, an empty body, or a count), which is a minor gap absent an output schema.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the non-empty constraint and ID-lookup hints. The description only restates the parameter set implicitly ('given test points of a test plan') and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (reset) plus resource (test points of a test plan) and the exact resulting state (NoResults). This is distinct from every sibling, which either lists/searches test points or creates runs from them; nothing else resets state.

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 implied rather than stated: 'back to NoResults' signals this is for clearing/retrying stale results, and the schema points to list_test_suite_test_points / search_test_points for obtaining IDs. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no caution statement about preferring a non-destructive path.

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

Deploy Server