HAOps MCP Server

haops_list_tests

Retrieve test records with metadata from a project, filtered by type, runner, suite, or linked entity.

Instructions

List tests in a project with optional filters. Returns test records with metadata.

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>"
    },
    "name": "haops_list_tests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Filter by test type (optional)
`limit`	No	Max results (default 50)
`runner`	No	Filter by test runner (optional)
`suiteId`	No	Filter by test suite UUID (optional)
`entityId`	No	Filter by linked entity UUID (optional)
`entityType`	No	Filter by linked entity type (optional)
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Returns test records with metadata.' It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention common behavioral traits like pagination, default limit, or side effects.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise, but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given that there are 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention default values for limit, pagination behavior, or that the required projectSlug must be a valid project identifier. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only 'with optional filters', which is already clear from the schema. It does not provide additional meaning or context for any parameter.

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 'List tests in a project' with optional filters and returning metadata. This distinguishes it from other tools that list issues, features, etc., but does not explicitly differentiate from haops_list_test_runs or 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 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 vs alternatives such as haops_list_test_suites or haops_list_test_runs. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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

Deploy Server