Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
testit-mcp-server

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

upload_attachment

Upload a file to TestIT and receive its attachment ID and metadata, so you can pass the ID in attachmentIds of create_work_item to attach the file to a work item.

Instructions

Upload a file to TestIT and get its attachment id/metadata. Pass the id in attachmentIds of create_work_item to attach it.

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "contentType": "<contentType>",
      "contentBase64": "<contentBase64>"
    },
    "name": "upload_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYesFile name including extension.
contentTypeYesMIME type, e.g. image/png.
contentBase64YesFile content encoded as base64.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, so the description needn't repeat that the call mutates. It adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack — that the call returns an attachment id and metadata, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits size limits, whether an unattached upload becomes an orphan, and duplicate-upload behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by the one piece of follow-up guidance an agent needs. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers what the call produces and how the result is consumed, which is the main completeness risk. The remaining gap is operational limits (file size, allowed content types, whether the upload stands alone until attached) that an agent might need to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of filename, contentType, and contentBase64 documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no encoding, format, or size constraints beyond it — notably it does not restate the base64 requirement or any size ceiling. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific verb (upload), resource (file), destination (TestIT), and an outcome (attachment id/metadata), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling upload_test_result_attachment and upload_work_item_attachment, so scope versus those specialized tools is left implicit.

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?

It supplies a concrete downstream workflow: take the returned id and pass it in attachmentIds of create_work_item. That is clear usage context for the primary path. It gives no exclusion, though — nothing says when to prefer this over the work-item- or test-result-specific upload tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools