Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TestMu AI Test Manager MCP

TestMu AI Test Manager MCP

by prakhar-gahlot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Test Manager Project by ID

tm.get_projectById

Get project details by project ID to verify existence or view metadata before creating test cases.

Instructions

Retrieves a single LambdaTest Test Manager project's details by its exact project ID: name, description, test case count, tags, and created/updated timestamps. Use this when the project ID is already known - for example, to verify a project exists before creating test cases in it, or to show project metadata to the user. Do not use this to search for a project by name or to list all projects.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "tm.get_projectById"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but description fully covers the read-only nature and specifies returned fields. No hidden behaviors disclosed; adequate for a simple retrieval.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded purpose, each sentence adds value. No extraneous information.

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 simple 1-param retrieval, description covers purpose, usage, and output fields. Missing error handling notes, but acceptable given simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, description only says 'exact project ID' without format details or constraints. Minimal added value over schema's param name.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a single project by exact ID, lists returned fields (name, description, test case count, etc.), and explicitly differentiates from search/list tools, which aligns with the sibling context.

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 when-to-use scenarios (verify existence, show metadata) and when-not-to (search by name, list all). Lacks explicit sibling names but still clear.

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