Skip to main content
Glama
Milo0821

Zephyr Scale MCP Server

by Milo0821

create_test_case

Create test cases with step-by-step, plain text, or BDD scripts, including custom fields, parameters, and issue links. Leverage existing test cases as templates.

Instructions

Create a new test case with STEP_BY_STEP, PLAIN_TEXT, or BDD content. To match your project's structure, use the zephyr://testcase/EXISTING-KEY resource to fetch a real test case and use its structure as a template, especially for custom_fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTest case name (required)
folderNoFolder path (optional, e.g., "/Orbiter/Cargo Bay")
labelsNoArray of labels (optional)
statusNoTest case status (optional, default: "Draft"). Value must match a status name configured in your Zephyr project (e.g. "Draft", "Approved", "Deprecated"). Note: always overridden to "Draft" on creation.Draft
owner_idNoTest case owner Jira Account ID (optional, Cloud only — e.g. "5b10a2844c20165700ede21g")
priorityNoTest case priority (optional). Value must match a priority name configured in your Zephyr project (e.g. "High", "Normal", "Low", "Critical"). Use zephyr://testcase/EXISTING-KEY to check your project's valid values.
objectiveNoTest objective (optional)
parametersNoTest parameters for data-driven testing (optional)
issue_linksNoArray of Jira issue keys to link to this test case (e.g. ["PROJ-123", "PROJ-456"]). On Cloud, each key is resolved to a numeric Jira issue ID via the Jira REST API, then linked via POST /testcases/{key}/links/issues — failures are reported as warnings but do not fail the tool call. On Data Center, sent directly in the create payload.
project_keyYesProject key (required)
test_scriptNoTest script object containing type and content
component_idNoJira component ID (optional, Cloud only — use the numeric component ID, not the name)
preconditionNoTest precondition (optional)
custom_fieldsNoCustom fields object (optional). Use the zephyr://testcase/EXISTING-KEY resource to fetch a real test case and copy its customFields structure. Common examples: {"Type": "Functional", "Priority": "P2", "Regression": false, "Execution Type": "Manual - To Be Automated", "Risk Control": false}
estimated_timeNoEstimated time in milliseconds (optional)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, error handling, or return behavior. The schema notes that status is always overridden to 'Draft', but this is not in the description, missing a key behavioral trait.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key usage tip. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, success criteria, or error scenarios, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions script types and the template tip. No extra semantics for parameters like custom_fields or test_script are provided.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Create a new test case' and specifies the three script types (STEP_BY_STEP, PLAIN_TEXT, BDD). It distinguishes from siblings like update_test_case_bdd by implying it handles multiple types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'add_test_cases_to_run' or other creation tools like 'create_folder'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides guidance on using a zephyr:// template for custom_fields and project structure, which helps the agent align with existing structures. However, it lacks explicit when-not to use or alternatives, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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/Milo0821/Zephyr_mcp_server'

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