Add test results to a TestRail run by case ID. Use when you know test case IDs instead of test IDs to record outcomes like Passed or Failed.
Add one or more test results to a test run using case IDs instead of test IDs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The ID of the test run | |
| results | Yes | Array of results to add. Each result must have case_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 mutation/safety profile is covered structurally and is not contradicted. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on failure behavior for invalid case/status IDs, batch atomicity, or permission requirements.
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 that conveys the action and the case-ID-vs-test-ID distinction immediately.
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 plus full schema and annotations cover the essentials, but the description contributes little on its own and omits any error/permission context an agent might need.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents run_id, the results array structure, and even points to get_cases/get_statuses for ID lookup. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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), resource (test results), target (a test run), and the key distinguishing mechanic: case IDs rather than test IDs. This implicitly separates it from the sibling add_results, though it never names that sibling directly.
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?
The 'using case IDs instead of test IDs' phrasing implies when to pick this over add_results, but it is never stated explicitly and no prerequisites (run must exist, valid status IDs, permissions) are given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.