Fetch a single TestRail section by ID or list all project sections, with optional regex filtering and nested child inclusion.
Retrieve a single section or all sections 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.
v2.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of nested-tree return, large-result handling, or filtering behavior—so it earns little credit here.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is marginally redundant with the schema's const values, but it keeps the definition compact.
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 low-complexity read tool with complete annotations, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema give an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. Sibling routing remains the only real gap, and that is minor for a straightforward query operation.
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 oneOf documents action, IDs, include_child, output_file, and name_pattern in detail. The description's restatement of 'one'/'many' duplicates the schema's const entries rather than extending them, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (section) and covers both modes of operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from mutate_section or the other query_* siblings, but the read-only 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?
The second sentence only explains how to encode the operation via payload.action; it never says when to choose this tool over a sibling such as mutate_section or how it relates to query_project/query_suite. Any prerequisites ('use query_suite/query_project to find IDs') live in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.