Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zephyr Scale MCP Server

Zephyr Scale MCP Server

by Milo0821
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_test_run_cases

Retrieve test case keys from a specified test run key to access and manage individual test cases in Zephyr Scale.

Instructions

Get test case keys from a test run

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_test_run_cases"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
test_run_keyYesTest run key (e.g., PROJ-R123)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if it supports pagination, or error conditions like invalid test run key.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks structured formatting.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain the return value format or provide context about the set of keys returned, which would help an agent interpret results.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema description already explains the test run key format. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it retrieves test case keys from a test run, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_test_run which returns full run details. However, it could be more specific by noting it returns only keys, not full test cases.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_test_run or get_test_case. For example, it doesn't explain that you might use this to get keys then call get_test_case for details.

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