Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
katalon-mcp-server

katalon-mcp-server

by PareshSoni468
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

katalon_create_test_case

Create a new test case for automated web testing by specifying project path, test case name, description, target URL, and test steps.

Instructions

Create a new test case with intelligent object identification

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": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>",
      "testCaseName": "<testCaseName>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "katalon_create_test_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesPath to the Katalon project
testCaseNameYesName of the new test case
descriptionYesDescription of what the test case should do
targetUrlNoTarget URL for web testing (optional)
testStepsNoArray of test steps with descriptions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It mentions 'intelligent object identification' but does not explain what that entails. No contradiction with annotations (none exist). Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though additional detail could be included without compromising conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or how 'intelligent object identification' works, leaving the agent with incomplete context for a 5-parameter tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond their schema definitions.

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 action ('Create a new test case') and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on analysis, execution, and management.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough from context. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information provided.

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