Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zephyr Scale MCP Server

Zephyr Scale MCP Server

by Milo0821
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_test_case_bdd

Update an existing test case with BDD content in markdown format (converted to Gherkin). Optionally update the test case name while preserving other fields.

Instructions

Update an existing test case with BDD content. Optionally update the test case name. Unspecified fields are preserved.

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_case_key": "<test_case_key>",
      "bdd_content": "<bdd_content>"
    },
    "name": "update_test_case_bdd"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew test case name (optional)
bdd_contentYesBDD content in markdown format (will be converted to Gherkin when possible)
test_case_keyYesTest case key to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It notes that BDD content will be converted to Gherkin when possible and that unspecified fields are preserved, but lacks details on permissions, destructiveness, or error behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding essential information: action, optionality, and preservation. No superfluous text.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers core behavior well. Missing return value hint, but overall sufficient for an update tool.

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% (all 3 parameters described). The description adds value by explaining bdd_content conversion and emphasizing the optional nature of name, going beyond schema.

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 tool's purpose: updating an existing test case with BDD content, optionally the name, and preserving unspecified fields. This distinguishes it from create and delete siblings.

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?

Implies usage for updating existing test cases with BDD content but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor contrasts with alternatives like update_test_run.

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