testit-mcp-server

search_autotests

Read-only

Find autotests by name, tags, class, namespace, flaky/deleted status, or project filters, with paging and sorting, to locate relevant TestIT tests.

Instructions

Search autotests. Typed fields are merged over an optional raw "filter" (AutoTestFilterApiModel). projectIds defaults to the current 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": "search_autotests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`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).
`tags`	No
`take`	No	Max number of items to return.
`filter`	No
`isFlaky`	No
`orderBy`	No	Sort expression, e.g. "createdDate desc".
`includes`	No	AutoTestSearchIncludeApiModel (e.g. includeSteps, includeLinks, includeLabels).
`className`	No
`isDeleted`	No	Default false (active only). true = archived autotests.
`namespace`	No
`projectId`	No
`externalIds`	No
`projectName`	No
`searchField`	No	Field name to search in.
`searchValue`	No	Value to search for in searchField.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: typed fields take precedence over the raw filter, and the project scope defaults to the current project. It omits other behavioral facts an agent would want, such as whether matching is exact or substring and whether results are capped.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The value is slightly undercut by the plural "projectIds" that does not match the singular schema parameter, forcing the agent to reconcile the two.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 18-parameter search tool with nested objects, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description covers only the filter-composition and default-scope pieces. It says nothing about pagination interaction (page/size/take/skip), result shape, or ordering expectations beyond what the schema snippets state.

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 coverage is only 50% across 18 parameters, so some compensation is required. The description does explain the two hardest semantics — typed-field precedence over "filter" and the default project scoping — but it misnames the schema's "projectId" as "projectIds", and leaves searchField/searchValue versus plain name matching, tags, and externalIds unclarified.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search autotests"), which is immediately distinguishable from the search_* siblings by domain object. It goes one step further by naming the underlying filter model (AutoTestFilterApiModel), but never contrasts itself with siblings such as list_work_item_autotests or search_test_results.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The merge rule ("typed fields are merged over an optional raw filter") hints at how to compose a query, but not when this tool is the right choice versus browsing or listing autotests.

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

Deploy Server