Skip to main content
Glama
testdino-hq

TestDino MCP

by testdino-hq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Manual Test Run

get_manual_run
Read-only

Retrieve full details of one manual test run, including name, status, environment, linked release, test stats, contributors, attachments, and linked issues, by project and run ID.

Instructions

Get the full details of one manual test run: name, status, environment, linked release, test stats (total/passed/failed/blocked/untested), contributors, attachments, linked issues. runId accepts either the internal _id or a counter-style ID like "RUN-12".

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runIdYesInternal _id or counter-style ID
projectIdYesProject ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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 / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"Project ID (required)."New value: +"Project ID"
    • changedInput schema / properties / runId / description
      Previous value: -"Internal _id or counter-style ID (required)."New value: +"Internal _id or counter-style ID"
  2. Addedv1.0.10

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the shape of the response (stats, contributors, attachments, linked issues), which is genuine value, but it discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior for missing/archived runs. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the resource and its returned contents front-loaded and the parameter caveat placed last where it belongs. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so with a concrete field list plus the accepted ID formats. The main remaining gap is disambiguation from sibling run-detail tools.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the dual-format runId. The description repeats that same runId detail rather than adding new meaning (e.g., what happens if a RUN-N id is ambiguous across projects). Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get the full details of one manual test run') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what payload to expect. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_run_details or list_manual_runs, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 singular 'one manual test run' implies this is the single-run fetch as opposed to list_manual_runs, which is a reasonable implicit cue. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing guidance against get_run_details or get_run_error_clusters.

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