systemlink-mcp

update_result_properties

Modify test result keywords and properties by result ID, allowing post-run enrichment or correction of test data.

Instructions

Update keywords or properties on a test result. Requires SYSTEMLINK_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE=1.

Uses TestMonitorClient.update_result. Asset metadata cannot be patched through the current AssetManagementClient, which has no update method.

result_id: Test Monitor result id. keywords: Replacement keyword list if provided. properties: Properties to merge onto the result.

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": {
      "result_id": "<result_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_result_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keywords`	No
`result_id`	Yes
`properties`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

It discloses the write requirement (SYSTEMLINK_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE=1) and clarifies that keywords are replaced and properties are merged. It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but the update nature 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-organized, with a brief overview, a requirement note, and a clear parameter list. No unnecessary words.

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?

It includes relevant context about the write requirement and a limitation regarding asset metadata. It does not describe the return value, but the output schema may cover that; overall it is sufficiently complete for an update operation.

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?

All three parameters are explained: result_id is the identifier, keywords is a replacement list, properties are merged. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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: 'Update keywords or properties on a test result.' It is specific and distinguishes itself from query-related sibling tools.

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 mentions a required environment variable and notes that asset metadata cannot be patched via another client, implying this tool is for test results. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the asset limitation.

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

Deploy Server