Create a new TestRail test suite or update an existing one by setting the action to 'create' or 'update' with the matching project or suite ID.
Create a new test suite or update an existing one in TestRail. Set payload.action to 'create' or 'update' to specify the operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | The mutation payload containing the action (create or update) and the corresponding suite attributes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0v2.1.0v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so the description's mutation framing adds little. It discloses nothing about permissions, whether update overwrites unspecified fields, error behavior, or side effects — all relevant for a non-idempotent write tool. No contradiction with annotations (create/update is not destructive).
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the mode selector. No filler; both sentences earn their place.
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?
Adequate for a simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, but it omits what an update actually changes and whether omitted fields are preserved — the main behavioral question an agent would have. Nothing about auth or failure modes either.
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 single payload parameter is fully documented with per-variant required fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the action values already encoded as const in the schema, adding no extra semantics.
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 specific verbs and resource ("Create a new test suite or update an existing one in TestRail") and names the discriminator between the two modes. It does not explicitly contrast with the read-only sibling query_suite, but the mutation intent is unambiguous.
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?
Tells the agent how to select the operation via payload.action='create'|'update', which is useful routing information. It gives no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., prefer query_suite to read, or which sibling to use for sections/runs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.