MCP DevOps Test Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.20
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: projects, tests, execution, results, logs, and download preparation. The only potential confusion is between get_test_results and get_test_log_results, but their descriptions differentiate comprehensive report data from log archive analysis.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, execute_, prepare_) and all use snake_case. Minor inconsistency exists between get_ and list_ for retrieval operations, but this is a common and acceptable variation.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a DevOps test management workflow: project discovery, test listing, execution, result retrieval, log retrieval, and download preparation. Each tool serves a distinct step without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle of test execution: discover projects, list tests, execute tests, retrieve results, and download logs. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit test detail view, no cancellation mechanism), but agents can accomplish primary workflows without dead ends.
Average 3.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Download and analyze' but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, consumes the archive, or has side effects, leaving significant uncertainty.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and object, containing no filler or redundant details.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain return values, but it does not. It also lacks usage conditions or differentiation from the sibling get_test_results, making the tool incomplete for an agent to fully understand.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both projectId and downloadId. The description adds the context of a zip archive, aligning with downloadId, but does not add meaningful parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Download and analyze' with a clear resource 'test log results from the zip archive'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_test_results by specifying 'log' results and the zip archive source, though the meaning of 'analyze' could be more precise.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_test_results or prepare_test_download. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions extracting an ID from the location header, but does not clarify side effects, async behavior, success/failure implications, or what the returned ID represents. The single behavioral detail is insufficient for safe invocation.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it packs two actions (prepare and extract) into one sentence, making it slightly dense.
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?
The tool has two required parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain what the caller receives and how to use the extracted download ID. It does not state the return format, whether the download is asynchronous, or how to retrieve the actual file. The 'location header' mention assumes HTTP knowledge not provided elsewhere.
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 both projectId and resultId having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('test result download'), and adds a distinguishing detail about extracting a download ID from the location header. This separates it from sibling tools like get_test_results, though the exact output behavior remains somewhat unclear.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for downloading test results, but does not explain relationships with sibling tools or conditions under which this tool should be preferred over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that tests are retrieved, without mentioning pagination, ordering, error conditions, or the meaning of the branch parameter. This is minimal behavioral detail for an AI agent.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, containing no filler or redundant detail. It is maximally concise while remaining informative.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks details such as the return format, whether branch affects test selection, and any usage context. With no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic information beyond restating that testType filtering is optional, which the schema already conveys.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves tests from a specific project with optional filtering, using the specific verb 'Retrieves' and naming the resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_test_results, but the function is unambiguous and aligns with the tool name.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_test_results or prepare_test_download. The mention of optional test type filtering implies a use case but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation via the verb 'Retrieves,' but it does not mention any side effects, permissions, pagination, or whether the returned data is a list or collection. The minimal transparency is sufficient for such a simple tool but lacks richer context.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It states exactly what the tool does without filler, achieving maximum conciseness for a tool of this simplicity.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the basic function. It tells the agent that this is a read-only fetch of all projects. It could optionally mention the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of projects'), but given the lack of complexity, the current description is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter details. The description correctly focuses on the action and scope, requiring no additional parameter semantics.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('all projects'), with a scope qualifier ('from the Test system'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools, which all focus on tests and execution rather than project listing.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While sibling tools are clearly test-related, the description does not explicitly state any usage context, exclusions, or alternative conditions. The tool is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses progressive polling back-off and typical duration, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not describe return structure, error cases, or rate limits.
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, purpose leading, then specific behavioral guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention return states or limits, but the polling guidance adds meaningful context beyond a basic 'get'.
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 no parameter-specific information, so 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 clearly states the tool retrieves comprehensive test execution results and report data, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool get_test_log_results, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
Provides explicit polling guidance for when status is RUNNING and gives expected completion time. This is clear context for use, though it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses timing expectations (60-180 seconds) and prescribes agent behavior (inform user, wait intervals, back-off strategy). This adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not describe return values or failure handling.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured, with clear TIMING and AGENT BEHAVIOR sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the format aids readability and comprehension. No wasted words.
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?
The description covers timing and polling behavior well, but lacks information about the tool's return value or how subsequent status checks are performed (e.g., via sibling tools). Since there is no output schema, this gap affects completeness. Overall, it is adequate but leaves room for improvement.
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 minimal value by referencing 'test name' and 'specific project', but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Execute a test in a specific project by test name.' The verb 'execute' and resource 'test in project' are specific, and the sibling tools (get_test_results, list_tests, etc.) are clearly different in function, so this tool is well-distinguished.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to execute a test), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It focuses on operational behavior rather than comparing with siblings, which earns a 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-devops-test MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-test/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-test)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-devops-test MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-test/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-test)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-test'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server