testit-mcp-server

upload_work_item_attachment

Uploads a file to a work item in TestIT using its ID, filename, MIME type, and base64 content. Use it to attach test evidence or documents.

Instructions

Upload an attachment to a 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>",
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "contentType": "<contentType>",
      "contentBase64": "<contentBase64>"
    },
    "name": "upload_work_item_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Work item UUID.
`filename`	Yes	File name including extension.
`contentType`	Yes	MIME type, e.g. image/png.
`contentBase64`	Yes	File content encoded as base64.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether re-uploading the same filename creates a duplicate or replaces, whether size limits apply, or what happens on failure — the traits most relevant to a non-idempotent binary upload.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance noted in other dimensions rather than from trimming waste.

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?

For a mutation tool taking four required parameters including a base64 payload, the definition omits upload constraints, duplicate/replace semantics, and any success indication, and there is no output schema to compensate. The rich schema and annotations cover the mechanics, but the behavioral gaps an agent would hit at call time remain undocumented.

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 the four required parameters (id, filename, contentType, contentBase64) documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional meaning such as encoding constraints or expected MIME type behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Upload an attachment to a work item"), which is clearer than the bare name and implicitly distinguishes it from upload_test_result_attachment by naming the target as a work item. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with upload_attachment, so the agent must infer which upload surface 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required permissions or that the work item must exist), and no named alternative among the several sibling upload tools. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the tool name itself.

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

Deploy Server