Zephyr Scale MCP Server

search_test_cases_by_folder

Search test cases within a specific folder of a Zephyr Scale project by providing project key and folder path.

Instructions

Search for test cases in a specific folder

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": {
      "project_key": "<project_key>",
      "folder_path": "<folder_path>"
    },
    "name": "search_test_cases_by_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`folder_path`	Yes	Folder path to search in (e.g., /ProjectName/SubFolder)
`max_results`	No	Maximum number of results to return (optional, default 100)
`project_key`	Yes	Project key (e.g., PROJ)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 does not disclose behaviors such as whether searching is recursive, pagination details, response format, or performance implications. The single sentence is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief for the complexity of the tool.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, limits, or edge cases. Essential for an agent to decide correctly.

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% (all parameters described). The description adds the example for folder_path but no extra 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'test cases', and the constraint 'in a specific folder'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_test_case (singular) and search_test_runs (different resource).

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 implies use when searching by folder but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_folders or list_executions_by_cycle. No 'when not to use' mentioned.

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

Deploy Server