Skip to main content
Glama
SmartBear

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear

Zephyr: Create Test Case

zephyr_create_test_case

Creates a new test case in a specified Jira project with customizable fields including objective, priority, labels, and custom fields.

Instructions

Create a new Test Case in Zephyr specified project

Toolset: Test Cases

Parameters:

  • projectKey (string) required: Jira project key.

  • name (string) required

  • objective (string): A description of the objective.

  • precondition (string): Any conditions that need to be met.

  • estimatedTime (number): Estimated duration in milliseconds.

  • componentId (number): ID of a component from Jira.

  • priorityName (string): The priority name.

  • statusName (string): The status name.

  • folderId (number): ID of a folder to place the entity within.

  • ownerId (string): Atlassian Account ID of the Jira user.

  • labels (array): Array of labels associated to this entity.

  • customFields (record<string, any>): Multi-line text fields support HTML and should denote new lines with the <br> tag. Dates should be in the format 'yyyy-MM-dd'. Users should have values of Jira User Account IDs.

Examples:

  1. Create a Test Case in project SA to ensure that the axial pump can be enabled

{
  "projectKey": "SA",
  "name": "Check axial pump",
  "objective": "Ensure the axial pump can be enabled"
}

Expected Output: The newly created Test Case with its details and key

  1. Create a Test Case to ensure that the axial pump can be enabled. The test should be in project MM2, have labels 'automated' and 'mcp', and priority 'High'

{
  "projectKey": "MM2",
  "name": "Check axial pump",
  "objective": "Ensure the axial pump can be enabled",
  "labels": [
    "automated",
    "mcp"
  ],
  "priorityName": "High"
}

Expected Output: The newly created Test Case with its details and key

  1. Create a Test Case for verifying strength of the axial pump with custom field 'Axial pump strength' having value '5' in project SA

{
  "projectKey": "SA",
  "name": "Check axial pump strength",
  "objective": "Make sure the axial pump operates at the required strength",
  "customFields": {
    "Axial pump strength": 5
  }
}

Expected Output: The newly created Test Case with its details and key

  1. Create a Test Case in project MM2 to verify the performance of the axial pump with Jira component having ID 10001, Jira owner having ID 10057 in folder 'Pumps'

{
  "projectKey": "MM2",
  "name": "Check axial pump performance",
  "objective": "Ensure the axial pump performs within acceptable limits",
  "componentId": 10001,
  "ownerJiraUserId": 10057,
  "folderId": 18
}

Expected Output: The newly created Test Case with its details and key

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
labelsNoArray of labels associated to this entity.
ownerIdNoAtlassian Account ID of the Jira user.
folderIdNoID of a folder to place the entity within.
objectiveNoA description of the objective.
projectKeyYesJira project key.
statusNameNoThe status name.
componentIdNoID of a component from Jira.
customFieldsNoMulti-line text fields support HTML and should denote new lines with the \<br\> tag. Dates should be in the format 'yyyy-MM-dd'. Users should have values of Jira User Account IDs.
preconditionNoAny conditions that need to be met.
priorityNameNoThe priority name.
estimatedTimeNoEstimated duration in milliseconds.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe ID of the entity
keyNo
selfNo
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and no idempotency (idempotentHint=false), which is consistent. The description lists parameters but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements (e.g., Jira project permissions), or failure modes (e.g., duplicate names). It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with sections (Toolset, Parameters, Examples) and is generally clear, but it is somewhat verbose. The parameter list partly repeats schema descriptions, and the 'Toolset: Test Cases' line is redundant given the tool name. It could be more concise while retaining essential information.

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 12 parameters (2 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the creation use case well with examples. It explains custom field formatting and provides expected output summaries. However, it does not detail output format or error conditions, leaving minor gaps for a complex input schema.

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?

With 92% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples that demonstrate parameter usage, such as customFields and labels, which go beyond the schema's individual descriptions. The examples clarify how parameters interact and is use together, enhancing understanding.

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 'Create a new Test Case in Zephyr specified project,' making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zephyr_update_test_case or zephyr_create_test_case_steps, which share the same test case resource but perform different operations.

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?

The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this only for new test cases, not for updating existing ones' or reference sibling tools like zephyr_get_test_case or zephyr_update_test_case. The examples illustrate typical use but do not provide decision criteria.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SmartBear/smartbear-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server