Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_import_test_suite

Import a test suite from a JSON bundle into a project. Creates new suite and test records with fresh UUIDs.

Instructions

Import a test suite from a JSON bundle into a project. Creates new suite and test records with fresh UUIDs.

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "bundle": "<bundle>"
    },
    "name": "haops_import_test_suite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bundleYesThe exported suite bundle (from haops_export_test_suite)
verboseNoIf true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
projectSlugYesThe project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must inform about behavioral traits. It mentions creating new records with fresh UUIDs but omits details about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is efficient but could include more context without being verbose.

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?

The tool has nested objects and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return value or behavior after import. This lack of completeness is a gap for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline of 3.

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 imports a test suite from a JSON bundle into a project, specifying it creates new suite and test records. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like haops_export_test_suite and haops_list_test_suites.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for importing a previously exported suite, but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives. The schema description for 'bundle' references haops_export_test_suite, but the tool description itself lacks usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools