Skip to main content
Glama
testdino-hq

TestDino MCP

by testdino-hq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Manual Test Suite

create_manual_test_suite

Create a new test suite folder to organize manual test cases. Optionally nest it under an existing suite using parentSuiteId; write permission required.

Instructions

Create a new test suite folder for organizing manual test cases. Requires write permission. Use parentSuiteId to nest it under an existing suite — get the ID from list_manual_test_suites() first.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSuite name
projectIdYesProject ID
descriptionNo
parentSuiteIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv2.2.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Removed value: -"Description of the test suite."
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Suite name (Required). A descriptive name for the test suite."New value: +"Suite name"
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • removedInput schema / properties / parentSuiteId / description
      Removed value: -"Optional parent suite ID to create this suite as a child of another suite. If not provided, creates a root-level suite."
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"Project ID (Required). The TestDino project identifier."New value: +"Project ID"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.10
    • addedInput schema / properties / description
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Description of the test suite.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value with 'Requires write permission' and the ID-sourcing prerequisite, but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, what happens to existing suites, or whether the new suite ID is returned.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the nesting prerequisite second. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple create tool with annotations covering the write/non-destructive profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission, and the nesting workflow. It omits what the call returns (notably the new suite ID, which an agent would need for follow-on creates) and leaves the description parameter unexplained.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: name and projectId are documented, but parentSuiteId has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining nesting semantics for parentSuiteId and where to obtain a valid ID, which is real meaning beyond the schema. The 'description' parameter remains undocumented in both places, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new test suite folder for organizing manual test cases'), which cleanly distinguishes it from create_manual_test_case and create_manual_run in the sibling list. The scoping phrase 'organizing manual test cases' tells the agent this is a container, not a case.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear conditional path: use parentSuiteId to nest under an existing suite and fetch that ID from list_manual_test_suites() first. This routes the agent to the right sibling for the dependency. It does not state when NOT to nest (e.g., root-level suites) or address duplicate-name situations, 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools