testit-mcp-server

update_work_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace an existing TestIT work item using a full model with its ID. Note that omitted fields are cleared, so use targeted updates when you only need to change specific fields.

Instructions

Replace a work item (PUT, full model with id). Fields not sent are cleared; prefer set_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": {
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "update_work_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the operationally critical detail that fields omitted from the payload are cleared, which explains the destructive semantics rather than just labeling them. It doesn't cover authorization needs or confirm that an existing id must be supplied in the payload.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the purpose before the caveat and the alternative. Every phrase carries weight; only minor gain would come from ordering the "prefer set_work_item" redirect even earlier.

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 nested, fully unconstrained payload object with no output schema, the description covers the crucial replacement semantics but leaves the model's contents entirely undocumented. An agent knows how the tool behaves but not what to put in the payload without consulting another tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single payload parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties, so the schema provides essentially nothing. The description partially compensates by indicating the payload is a "full model with id" and that absent fields are cleared, but it never enumerates the model's fields or the type of the id.

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?

"Replace a work item (PUT, full model with id)" gives a specific verb (replace), resource (work item), and the HTTP shape (PUT, full model). It is clearly separable from set_work_item, which it explicitly names as the alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description routes the agent away from this tool by default with "prefer set_work_item," which is actionable guidance against a real sibling. It stops short of spelling out the exact condition under which a full replacement is the right call, leaving that inference to the reader.

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

Deploy Server