Zephyr Scale MCP Server

get_folders

Retrieve folders from Zephyr Scale with optional filters by project, type, or path. Use folder_path to return the full subtree under a given path.

Instructions

Get folders from Zephyr Scale. All parameters are optional. If folder_path is provided, returns the full subtree (the folder and all its descendants at every depth) under that path. Otherwise returns all folders matching the filters.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`folder_path`	No	Folder path to filter by (e.g., "/CRM on Wechat"). Returns the matching folder and all folders nested beneath it at any depth. Requires project_key and folder_type to resolve the path.
`folder_type`	No	Folder type filter (optional)
`max_results`	No	Maximum total number of folders to return (optional). Defaults to all folders.
`project_key`	No	Jira project key filter (e.g., "PROJ"). Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral detail that folder_path returns the full subtree at any depth. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the read-only nature is inferred.

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 two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description adequately covers the tool's behavior given no output schema. It explains the core logic and parameter interactions, though it omits the return format (e.g., list of objects).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful context for folder_path (subtree) and defaults for max_results, improving understanding beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves folders with optional filters. It explains the subtree behavior when folder_path is provided, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_test_cases_by_folder, missing a clear sibling differentiation.

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?

Description clarifies that all parameters are optional and explains the folder_path behavior vs default filtering. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as search_test_cases_by_folder.

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

Deploy Server