QASE MCP Server

get_results

Retrieve test run results for a project to analyze performance and identify issues.

Instructions

Get all test run results for a project

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`status`	No
`from`	No
`to`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get all test run results' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by limit/offset params), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and output, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a project' which hints at the 'code' parameter, but doesn't explain the other 5 parameters (limit, offset, status, from, to) or their semantics. This leaves most parameters undocumented.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all test run results for a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_result' (singular) or 'get_runs', leaving some ambiguity 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_result' (singular) or 'get_runs'. The description implies it retrieves all results, but without context on filtering or comparison to siblings, usage is unclear.

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