Retrieve a single TestRail test run by ID or all test runs for a project. Set action to 'one' with run_id or 'many' with project_id.
Retrieve a single test run or all test runs for a project 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.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds the operation-mode distinction, but says nothing about pagination, return volume for 'many', authentication needs, or what happens when a run is not found.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval purpose and followed immediately by the operation selector. There is no redundant or wasted language.
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 retrieval tool with a richly described schema and complete annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits no critical call-time requirement, though it could note the list-return behavior for 'many', which is the only minor gap.
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 nested schema documents action, run_id, project_id, suite_id, and is_completed in detail. The description merely restates that action should be 'one' or 'many', adding no meaning beyond the structured parameters, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieve test run(s) in TestRail. It also distinguishes the two supported scopes, single run versus all runs for a project, so an agent can quickly identify what the tool does without opening 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?
The description explains how to select the operation via payload.action ('one' or 'many'), which is useful in-tool usage guidance. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like query_test, get_results, or mutate_run, so alternative selection is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.