Retrieve a single TestRail project by ID or list all available projects, enabling AI assistants to browse project data during test management workflows.
Retrieve a single project or all projects in TestRail. Set payload.action to 'one' or 'many' to specify the operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | The payload containing the action ('one' or 'many') and corresponding parameters |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of pagination, result ordering, or filtering behavior for the 'many' case – so it does not enrich the structured context.
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 what is retrieved and then the operation selector. No filler and no 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 read-only, single-parameter query tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema fully documents the payload, the description is essentially sufficient. Minor gap: with no output schema, it does not hint at what a project record contains, but this is not strictly required for correct invocation.
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%: the payload oneOf branches document 'one' (with project_id) and 'many' in full detail. The description restates the action values already enumerated in the schema and adds no new meaning, which fits the baseline 3.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('project'), and clarifies the two scopes: a single project or all projects. It clearly separates query_project from resource-differentiating siblings like query_suite, query_run, and query_test without needing the schema.
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?
It tells the agent how to select the operation ('Set payload.action to one or many') but gives no guidance on when to use each mode, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools. Usage is implied rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.