Skip to main content
Glama
Atakan-Emre

QA-MCP: Test Standardization & Orchestration Server

by Atakan-Emre

xray.get_mapping_template

Retrieves Xray mapping templates to standardize test case formatting for quality assurance workflows.

Instructions

Xray alan eşleme şablonunu döner

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the 'xray.get_mapping_template' tool. It returns a predefined dictionary containing standard mappings, custom field suggestions, Xray-specific fields, and notes for configuring Xray field mappings.
    def get_xray_field_mapping_template() -> dict:
        """
        Get a template for Xray field mappings.
    
        Returns:
            Dictionary with QA-MCP fields and suggested Xray mappings
        """
        return {
            "standard_mappings": {
                "title": "summary",
                "description": "description",
                "priority": "priority",
                "module": "components",
                "tags": "labels",
                "labels": "labels",
                "steps": "Test Steps (Xray built-in)",
                "preconditions": "Precondition (Xray built-in)",
            },
            "custom_field_suggestions": {
                "risk_level": "customfield_XXXXX (Text/Select)",
                "scenario_type": "customfield_XXXXX (Select)",
                "feature": "customfield_XXXXX (Text)",
                "estimated_duration_minutes": "customfield_XXXXX (Number)",
                "requirements": "customfield_XXXXX (Text) veya Issue Links",
            },
            "xray_specific": {
                "test_type": "testtype (Manual/Generic/Cucumber)",
                "test_repository_folder": "Xray Test Repository klasörü",
                "test_sets": "Test Set issue links",
                "test_plans": "Test Plan issue links",
            },
            "notes": [
                "Custom field ID'leri Jira admin'den alınmalı",
                "Select tipi alanlar için önce option'lar oluşturulmalı",
                "Issue links için link type tanımlanmalı",
            ],
        }
  • The tool registration in the list_tools() handler, defining the tool name, description, and input schema (no required parameters).
    Tool(
        name="xray.get_mapping_template",
        description="Xray alan eşleme şablonunu döner",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {},
        },
    ),
  • The input schema for the tool, which is an empty object (no input parameters expected).
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {},
        },
    ),
  • The dispatch logic in the generic call_tool() function that invokes the specific handler for this tool.
    elif name == "xray.get_mapping_template":
        result = get_xray_field_mapping_template()
        audit_log(name, arguments, "Returned mapping template")
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool returns something without describing behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format the return is in, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. However, it could be slightly more informative while maintaining conciseness, such as specifying what 'Xray field mapping template' refers to.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that presumably returns data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the mapping template contains, its format, or how it might be used. For a tool with this level of complexity (returning a template), more context about the return value would be helpful since there's no output schema to provide that information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool returns an Xray field mapping template, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Xray field mapping template' specifically means and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like testcase.to_xray or suite.compose. The description lacks specificity about what resource is being accessed or what the template contains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like testcase.to_xray and suite.compose available, there's no indication of when this mapping template retrieval is appropriate versus those other operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Atakan-Emre/McpTestGenerator'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server