Skip to main content
Glama

update_run_test_case

Set assignee and/or result for a single test case inside a manual run, supporting caseKey, RTC ID, or test case _id.

Instructions

Set the assignee and/or result for one test case inside a manual run — exactly what clicking 'Assign to' and changing the result pill does in the UI. Requires write permission. rtcRef accepts the caseKey ('TC-156'), the internal tcm_rtc_... RTC ID, or the underlying test case _id. Works for both already-touched cases and 'untested' virtual cases (the server auto-creates the per-case record on first edit). IMPORTANT: updates.assigneeUserId accepts an email OR a User _id — both work. updates.result canonical values are 'untested', 'passed', 'failed', 'blocked', 'skipped', 'retest' — pass display ('Passed', 'Blocked') or canonical form, server normalizes lowercase+underscored. To assign or update multiple cases at once, call this tool in parallel (one call per case).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject ID (required).
runIdYesInternal run _id or counter-style ID e.g. 'RUN-12' (required).
rtcRefYesPer-case record reference — `tcm_rtc_...` _id, caseKey ('TC-156'), or underlying test case _id (required).
updatesYesFields to update: assigneeUserId (email or _id, pass null to unassign), result/status (display or canonical form), elapsed (seconds).
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: write permission, multiple ID formats for rtcRef, auto-creation of records for untouched cases, unassigning via null, and result normalization. It discloses all important behaviors.

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 paragraph but front-loaded with purpose. It is efficient, with each sentence adding value. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points, but it remains clear and not overly verbose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lacks return value info but covers all necessary usage details. It handles complexity of 4 parameters and nested objects well. Minor gap on error scenarios but adequate for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains rtcRef accepts three formats, updates.assigneeUserId accepts email or _id, and canonical values for result. This enhances understanding substantially.

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 updates assignee and/or result for one test case in a manual run, using specific action verbs and resource identification. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_manual_test_case by focusing on run-context test cases.

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?

The description provides guidance on when to use the tool (for single case) and suggests parallel calls for multiple cases. It mentions write permission requirement but does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, though context makes it clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/testdino-hq/testdino-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server