Skip to main content
Glama
testdino-hq

TestDino MCP

by testdino-hq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Integration Status

get_integration_status
Read-only

Check if Jira, Linear, Asana, monday.com, or GitHub is connected to a TestDino project before connecting or creating issues.

Instructions

Check whether Jira, Linear, Asana, monday.com, or GitHub is connected for a TestDino project. Call this before connect_integration or create_external_issue.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNoProvider-specific target/field values. Jira accepts human-readable aliases such as { jiraProjectKey: "TRX", issueType: "Bug" } or { jiraProjectName, issueTypeName }; raw { jiraProjectId, issueTypeId } also works. Linear { teamId }, Asana { workspaceId, projectId }, monday.com { boardId }.
providerYesIntegration provider connected to this TestDino project.
projectIdYesTestDino project ID
includeCreateOptionsNoWhen true, include provider create metadata (createOptions: projects, issue types, required/optional fields). Resolved against the provider default target when no target is supplied.

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
    • changedInput schema / properties / includeCreateOptions / description
      Previous value: -"When true, the response also includes createOptions: provider projects, issue types, and required/optional/custom fields for create_external_issue."New value: +"When true, include provider create metadata (createOptions: projects, issue types, required/optional fields). Resolved against the provider default target when no target is supplied."
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"Project ID (Required). The TestDino project identifier."New value: +"TestDino project ID"
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Previous value: -"Integration provider to check (Required)."New value: +"Integration provider connected to this TestDino project."
    • changedInput schema / properties / target / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
    • changedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Previous value: -"Provider-specific target/field values (optional) used to resolve createOptions against a specific target instead of the provider default. Examples: Jira { jiraProjectKey, issueType }, Linear { teamId }, Asana { workspaceId, projectId }, monday { boardId }."New value: +"Provider-specific target/field values. Jira accepts human-readable aliases such as { jiraProjectKey: \"TRX\", issueType: \"Bug\" } or { jiraProjectName, issueTypeName }; raw { jiraProjectId, issueTypeId } also works. Linear { teamId }, Asana { workspaceId, projectId }, monday.com { boardId }."
  2. Addedv2.0.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered structurally. The description adds the useful framing that this is a precondition probe spanning five providers, but discloses nothing about the response shape or the behavior of includeCreateOptions (which triggers provider metadata resolution).

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the what is front-loaded and the sequencing instruction follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only probe with no output schema, the description covers purpose and invocation timing but never hints at what the status result contains or that includeCreateOptions returns create metadata (projects, issue types, required fields). That omission is the main gap in an otherwise adequate definition.

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% and the nested 'target' object, provider enum, and includeCreateOptions flag are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the provider list, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (check) and resource (integration connection status) scoped to a TestDino project, and enumerates all five supported providers (Jira, Linear, Asana, monday.com, GitHub). An agent can distinguish it immediately from connect_integration and create_external_issue.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Call this before connect_integration or create_external_issue,' naming the two sibling tools it gates and the sequencing condition that selects it. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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