testit-mcp-server

stop_test_run

Idempotent

Stops an active test run in TestIT by its ID, ending execution when testing is complete or must be halted.

Instructions

Stop a test run.

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": "stop_test_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

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=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what state the run ends in, whether results are retained afterward, or whether auth/permission scoping applies. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added context.

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?

One sentence with no filler and the verb is front-loaded. It is terse rather than bloated; the only issue is that the brevity shades into under-specification rather than redundancy.

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?

This is a state-changing tool with a required undocumented identifier, no output schema, and no annotations explaining effects. The description should state what stopping does to in-progress results and what the response contains; as written it leaves an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is completely unexplained in the description. With many entities in this API carrying ids (test runs, plans, suites, results), the agent cannot tell from the text that this id is the test run identifier, which is a meaningful ambiguity for a mutation call.

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 specific verb and resource ('Stop a test run'), which matches the tool name and makes the operation recognizable. However, it adds no scope or differentiation from the many sibling run-lifecycle tools (complete_test_run, start_test_run, delete_test_run, purge_test_run) and essentially restates the name.

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 guidance on when to stop versus complete, delete, or purge a run, nor any mention of prerequisites such as a run needing to be in started state. The agent must infer the lifecycle position from the sibling names alone.

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

Deploy Server