testit-mcp-server

search_test_runs

Read-only

Find test runs across projects or within the current project using filters like name, tags, states, and sort order. Use it to locate and page through execution results for review.

Instructions

Search test runs (across projects if no project given). Typed fields are merged over an optional raw "filter" (TestRunFilterApiModel). 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_test_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Substring of the run name.
`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
`states`	No
`orderBy`	No	Sort expression, e.g. "createdDate desc".
`isDeleted`	No
`projectId`	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

B3.4/5.0

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 cross-project reach and safety profile are partly pre-covered. What the description genuinely adds is the precedence rule ("typed fields are merged over an optional raw filter") and the default project scoping, both non-obvious. It still says nothing about result ordering defaults, pagination interaction between page/skip/take, or result volume for a 14-parameter search.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the merging mechanics. Slightly dense packing of three distinct facts makes it less scannable than it could be, but nothing is wasted.

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 a 14-parameter, zero-required search with a nested free-form filter object and no output schema, the description covers the two hardest decisions (scope default and filter merging) but leaves pagination interaction, sort defaults, and the projectIds/projectId naming unresolved. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not complete.

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?

The merge-precedence sentence is real value beyond the schema and explains how the typed fields relate to the opaque free-form "filter" object, which the schema leaves as additionalProperties:true with no guidance. Against that, the description names "projectIds" while the schema exposes "projectId" (singular), a mismatch that can mislead, and with 57% schema coverage across 14 parameters, undocumented fields such as tags, states, isDeleted, and searchField/searchValue are only partly compensated for.

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 ("Search test runs") and adds a scope qualifier ("across projects if no project given"), which is meaningful for an agent deciding reach. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling list_test_runs / list_autotest_test_runs tools, so an agent cannot resolve search-vs-list purely from this text.

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?

"across projects if no project given" implies a usage condition: omit project filtering to widen scope. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling list_* tools that appear to serve adjacent needs, leaving the choice to inference.

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

Deploy Server