Skip to main content
Glama
Milo0821

Zephyr Scale MCP Server

by Milo0821

create_test_run

Create a new test run in Zephyr Scale by specifying project, name, and optional test cases, plan, dates, and custom fields.

Instructions

Create a new test run

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTest run name (required)
ownerNoTest run owner (optional)
folderNoFolder path (optional)
issue_keyNoSingle Jira issue key to link to the test cycle (e.g. "PROJ-123"). On Cloud, resolved to a numeric ID via Jira REST API — requires JIRA_USERNAME + JIRA_API_TOKEN env vars.
descriptionNoTest run description (optional)
environmentNoTest environment name (optional). On Cloud, applied to each test execution (environmentName). On Data Center, set at cycle level.
issue_linksNoArray of Jira issue keys to link to the test cycle (e.g. ["PROJ-123", "PROJ-456"]). On Cloud, each key is resolved to a numeric ID via Jira REST API — requires JIRA_USERNAME + JIRA_API_TOKEN env vars. Failures are reported as warnings and do not fail the tool call.
project_keyYesProject key (required)
custom_fieldsNoCustom fields object (optional)
test_plan_keyNoTest plan key to link this test run to (optional)
test_case_keysNoArray of test case keys to include in the test run
planned_end_dateNoPlanned end date in ISO format (optional)
planned_start_dateNoPlanned start date in ISO format (optional)
jira_project_versionNoJira project version/release ID to link this test cycle to (optional, Cloud only — use the numeric version ID).
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on success/failure, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (5 words), which is underspecified rather than concise. It lacks any structure or additional information, making it unhelpful for an agent's decision-making.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 14 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a test run is, how it relates to test cases, or any operational context. The agent has to rely solely on the schema, which is inadequate for complex operations.

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%, with each parameter already well-described in the input schema (including Cloud-specific details for issue_key and issue_links). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema carries the full burden adequately, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'Create a new test run' provides a clear verb and resource, but it is a tautology of the tool name and lacks additional context to differentiate from sibling tools like add_test_cases_to_run or update_test_run. It is minimally adequate but not helpful beyond the name.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like add_test_cases_to_run or update_test_run are mentioned in the context but no usage context is provided.

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