Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zephyr Scale MCP Server

Zephyr Scale MCP Server

by Milo0821
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_test_cases_to_run

Add test cases to an existing test run in Zephyr Scale Cloud using the test run key and array of test case keys.

Instructions

Add test cases to an existing test run (Cloud only — not supported on Data Center)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "test_run_key": "<test_run_key>",
      "test_case_keys": "<test_case_keys>"
    },
    "name": "add_test_cases_to_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
test_run_keyYesTest run key (e.g., PROJ-R161)
test_case_keysYesArray of test case keys to add to the test run

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 'Add test cases' without disclosing side effects, permissions, idempotency, return value, or behavior on duplicates. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence that front-loads the action and key constraint. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return value or side effects (e.g., updated count). Also missing behavior for duplicate test cases. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema; it just repeats the action. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (add) and resource (test cases to a test run) and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_test_run or delete_test_case. The 'Cloud only' note adds specificity and prevents misuse on unsupported platforms.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states the platform limitation (Cloud only), guiding when not to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., test run must exist) or when to use alternatives like updating the test run directly. Still provides clear context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools