Lucius

Add Test Result Attachment

add_test_result_attachment

Upload evidence files to a manual test result, returning attachment IDs for use in submission or later updates. Attach screenshots or logs to support test outcomes.

Instructions

Upload evidence to a manual test result.

The returned attachment_ids can be used as attachment_id values in submit_manual_test_results. Result-level evidence can also be uploaded after a manual result has been resolved.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`attachment`	Yes	Attachment payload using the repo-standard pattern: {name, content_type, content? \| url?}.
`project_id`	No	Optional override for the default Project ID.
`output_format`	No	Output format: 'json' (default) or 'plain'.
`test_result_id`	Yes	Manual test result ID (required).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target_id`	No
`file_names`	No
`status_code`	No
`target_kind`	No
`attachment_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.16.1Sep 23, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / attachment_ids

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Attachment Ids"
+}

Addedv0.14.0Jul 30, 2026
Removedv0.12.1Jul 17, 2026
First observedv0.11.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readonly and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: the operation returns attachment_ids and supports post-resolution uploads. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose much beyond those two points.

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 short sentences carry the purpose, the return-value relationship, and a timing nuance. Every sentence earns its place and the main verb is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, the input schema covers parameters, and annotations cover basic operation traits. The description supplies the cross-tool workflow context and post-resolution timing, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by tying the returned attachment_ids to the submit_manual_test_results attachment_id parameter, but it does not add new meaning to the input parameters themselves.

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 ('Upload evidence to a manual test result') and goes further by explaining how the returned IDs plug into submit_manual_test_results. This distinguishes it from related upload/attachment tools even without naming them.

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?

Gives clear usage context: attachments can be added before or after resolution, and the returned IDs are meant for submit_manual_test_results. It does not enumerate alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended workflow is evident.

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

Deploy Server