testit-mcp-server

search_projects

Read-only

Search and filter TestIT projects by query, field, and value, with options to paginate, sort, and limit returned results.

Instructions

Search projects by filter.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_projects"
  }
}

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.
`query`	Yes	Search filter object.
`orderBy`	No	Sort expression, e.g. "createdDate desc".
`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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of how the query filter is combined, whether results are paginated by default, or what happens with an empty/malformed filter — despite openWorldHint implying access beyond a closed project set.

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 is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is concise to the point of under-specification. The brevity buys nothing because the freed space is not used for filter or paging guidance.

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?

With 8 parameters, a required nested object, no output schema, and open-world behavior, the definition needs to explain the filter shape and result semantics. Instead it supplies one clause, so an agent could call the tool but could not construct a meaningful query without trial and error.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the primitive paging and sorting parameters, which would normally support a 3. But the one required parameter, "query", is a nested object documented only as "Search filter object." with no disclosed structure, and the description does nothing to explain it — a real semantic gap the description should have filled.

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 names a verb ("Search") and a resource ("projects") with a filter qualifier, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it gives no scope detail and does not distinguish this from siblings like list_projects or the other search_* tools, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool fits.

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?

"by filter" is the only usage hint; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_projects or the other search_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer selection criteria from tool names alone, which the sibling list explicitly says is unreliable.

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

Deploy Server