Add existing test cases to a test collection, skipping duplicates to prevent errors. Only cases from the same project are accepted.
Add test cases to an existing test collection. Cases must exist and belong to the same project. Duplicate cases are skipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caseIds | Yes | Numeric test case IDs to add (e.g., [1, 2, 3]) | |
| collectionId | Yes | Test collection UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: duplicate cases are skipped, and the cases must exist and belong to the same project. These are valuable operational details that align with, and enrich, the idempotentHint=true annotation. It does not specify failure behavior for invalid cases or collection, but the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the caveats are stated briefly and precisely. Every sentence provides useful action-oriented information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter mutating operation, the description is largely sufficient: it gives the target, the precondition, and the duplicate-skipping behavior. With idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false already supplied, the description covers most operational concerns. It does not describe what happens if a case belongs to another project or if the collection is missing, but that is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains parameter formats and meanings. The description adds operational meaning such as duplicate handling and project membership, but it does not need to restate parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (add), the object (test cases), and the target (an existing test collection). This differentiates it from related tools like add_cases_to_execution and remove_cases_from_collection without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use this tool: when adding test cases to an existing collection. The preconditions that cases must exist in the same project help clarify correct use. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the target resource is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.