testit-mcp-server

unlink_work_item_autotests

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes all autotest links from a TestIT work item and marks it manual (isAutomated=false). Use it to convert an automated item back to manual; remove a single link separately.

Instructions

Remove ALL autotest links of a work item; it becomes manual (isAutomated=false). To drop one link use unlink_autotest_work_item.

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": "unlink_work_item_autotests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Work item UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuinely new behavior by stating the blast radius (every autotest link) and the side effect on the work item (it becomes manual). It does not mention whether the removal is recoverable or what permissions are required, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: the destructive scope and outcome are front-loaded, and the sibling routing follows immediately. There is no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: the target, the fact that all links are removed, the post-condition, and the single-link alternative. Nothing material is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as a work item UUID. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (remove ALL autotest links of a work item) plus the resulting state (isAutomated=false), so the agent knows exactly what the call accomplishes. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from unlink_autotest_work_item, which is the nearest sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the alternative (unlink_autotest_work_item) and the condition that selects it ('to drop one link'), which makes the bulk-vs-single choice unambiguous. No further exclusions are needed because the scope word 'ALL' already carries the boundary.

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

Deploy Server