Retrieve tests for a TestRail test run, optionally filtered by status. Deprecated: use query_test with action 'many' instead.
Get tests for a test run, optionally filtered by status (Deprecated: use query_test with action 'many' instead)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The ID of the test run | |
| status_id | No | Optional array of status IDs to filter by. Use get_statuses to retrieve available status IDs |
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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the deprecation status; it does not describe return format, pagination, or any permission constraints, so added value beyond annotations is modest.
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 states the primary action, then the optional filter, with the deprecation note in a concise parenthetical. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description plus schema is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not hint at the return shape, though no output schema exists and deprecation reduces the 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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the optional status filter but adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Get') and resource ('tests') scoped to a test run, and names its replacement (query_test with action 'many'). It is clear, but the generic term 'tests' is not explicitly contrasted with siblings like get_cases or get_results, leaving some ambiguity about what entity is returned.
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?
Explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and names the alternative call to use instead (query_test with action 'many'). That is direct when-not and alternative guidance, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid invoking it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.