Record one or more test results in a TestRail test run by providing the run ID plus each test ID, status ID, and optional comments or defects.
Add one or more test results to a test run
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The ID of the test run | |
| results | Yes | Array of results to add. Each result must have test_id and status_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0v2.1.0v2.0.0v1.9.2v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not warn that re-adding the same result is non-idempotent (duplicates possible), nor describe permissions or what the call returns. For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and scope come first. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness, since no behavioral detail accompanies it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description omits what happens on success (created IDs, duplicates) and does not route the agent to the sibling add_results_for_cases or the required lookup tools. Annotations carry the safety signal, but the remaining behavioral gap is significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents run_id, the results array, and each nested field including cross-references to get_tests and get_statuses. The description adds no syntax, format, or batching semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (add) and resource (test results) with scope (one or more, to a test run), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling add_results_for_cases, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. results must belong to an existing run), and no mention of the closely related add_results_for_cases alternative. The agent is left to infer the distinction from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.