QASE MCP Server

get_runs

Retrieve test runs from a Qase project using filters like status, milestone, or time range to analyze testing progress and results.

Instructions

Get all test runs in 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_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`search`	No
`status`	No
`milestone`	No
`environment`	No
`fromStartTime`	No
`toStartTime`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`include`	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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Get all' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., completeness guarantees).

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?

Extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without waste. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Incomplete for a tool with 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema. The description lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, and output details, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without guessing.

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 but fails to do so. It mentions no parameters, leaving all 10 parameters (like 'search', 'status', 'milestone') undocumented. The phrase 'in a project' hints at the 'code' parameter but doesn't explain its role or format.

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 'Get all test runs in a project' clearly states the action (get) and resource (test runs), with scope (in a project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_run' (singular) by specifying 'all' runs, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-like tools like 'get_cases' or 'get_results' beyond resource type.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose 'get_runs' over 'get_run' (singular) or other filtering tools, nor does it provide context about prerequisites 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.