testit-mcp-server

set_test_result

Idempotent

Updates selected fields of a test result via JSON Patch while leaving other fields unchanged; use statusCode to change result status and operations for extra RFC 6902 patches.

Instructions

Change selected fields of a test result (JSON Patch) without touching the others. To change the result status use statusCode (patching outcome is ignored by TestIT). Raw RFC 6902 operations can be added via "operations".

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": "set_test_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Test result UUID.
`trace`	No	Stack trace.
`comment`	No
`message`	No	Failure/info message.
`operations`	No	Extra JSON Patch operations [{op, path, value}].
`statusCode`	No	Status code, e.g. PASSED, FAILED, BLOCKED, SKIPPED (full list incl. custom: list_test_statuses).
`durationInMs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and the partial-patch semantics are consistent with all three. The description does add one genuinely non-obvious behavior: that patching 'outcome' is ignored by TestIT and statusCode must be used instead. Beyond that quirk it discloses nothing about permissions, side effects (e.g. whether reruns or run state recalculate), or the response, so a 3 is the right ceiling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a single high-value warning, then the escape hatch. Nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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 7-parameter partial-update tool with no output schema, the definition covers the crucial semantics: omitted fields are untouched, status changes go through statusCode, and operations extends the patch. It doesn't cover permission requirements or any downstream effects of a status change, and it references an 'outcome' field that doesn't appear in the schema, which could momentarily puzzle an agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 71%, so the schema carries most of the weight for id, comment, trace, message, and durationInMs. The description nevertheless adds real meaning the schema does not: statusCode is the sanctioned route to change status, the 'outcome' field is a dead end, and operations accepts raw RFC 6902 documents. That is value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Specific verb ('Change selected fields'), specific resource ('a test result'), and a named mechanism ('JSON Patch'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'update_test_result', which reads like the same operation, and with no title or differentiation an agent must guess which one to pick.

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?

It gives useful in-tool guidance ('To change the result status use statusCode', 'Raw RFC 6902 operations can be added via operations'), which tells the agent how to use the parameters. What it doesn't give is when to choose this tool over update_test_result, or any prerequisite/exclusion information; usage guidance for tool selection is only implied.

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

Deploy Server