Zephyr Scale MCP Server

list_executions_by_cycle

Retrieve all test executions for a test cycle, including status, executor, and end date, for Cloud instances.

Instructions

List all test executions for a specific test cycle. Returns execution status, executedBy, actualEndDate for each test case in the cycle. Cloud only.

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_cycle_key": "<test_cycle_key>",
      "project_key": "<project_key>"
    },
    "name": "list_executions_by_cycle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`max_results`	No	Maximum number of results to return (optional, default 100)
`project_key`	Yes	Project key (required for Cloud)
`test_cycle_key`	Yes	Test cycle key (e.g., DDCN-R371)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error behavior, or pagination beyond mentioning the return fields. It only states 'Cloud only' as a constraint.

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 sentences, front-loads the action, and includes key details like return fields and cloud constraint with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return fields, and the cloud restriction. It is mostly complete but could mention pagination handling.

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 parameter descriptions, so the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists test executions for a specific test cycle and mentions the returned fields. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_test_execution or get_test_run_cases.

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 tells when to use (list executions for a cycle) and includes the 'Cloud only' constraint, but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server