QASE MCP Server

get_plan

Retrieve a specific test plan from the QASE test management platform using its unique code and ID for project organization and execution.

Instructions

Get a specific test plan

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": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without any information about permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value includes (e.g., plan details). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with 2 required parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, return values, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the two required parameters ('code' and 'id') are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'code' or 'id' represent, their formats, or how they relate to retrieving a test plan. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get a specific test plan' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('test plan'), but it lacks specificity about what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_plans' (which likely lists multiple plans) or 'get_project' (which might retrieve project-level information). It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague about scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_plans' (likely for listing plans) and 'get_project' (for project-level data), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for selecting 'get_plan' over these other retrieval tools.

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