Retrieve a test's recent run history to tell a new breakage from a long-flaky test. Use a testKey from turnsignal_run to inspect outcomes, branches, and runs.
One test's recent results across runs (newest first): outcome, branch, run. Use it to tell a new breakage from a long-flaky test. testKey comes from turnsignal_run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| testKey | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering (newest first) and the returned fields, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about limits, pagination, or what happens when no runs exist for the test.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler; purpose, output shape, use case, and parameter provenance are all front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-param read tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify mutation safety (it's implicitly read-only but never says so) and the limit behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but only two parameters exist. The description explains testKey's provenance ('comes from turnsignal_run'), which is valuable, but the 'limit' parameter is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: returns one test's recent results across runs, ordered newest-first, with the returned fields named (outcome, branch, run). This is distinguishable from siblings like turnsignal_flaky_tests and turnsignal_run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives a clear use case: 'Use it to tell a new breakage from a long-flaky test.' That's a genuine when-to-use signal. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling turnsignal_flaky_tests, which is the closest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.