Skip to main content
Glama
SmartBear

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear

Zephyr: Create Test Cycle

zephyr_create_test_cycle

Create a test cycle in Zephyr for a Jira project, defining name, schedule, status, owner, and custom fields to manage test execution.

Instructions

Create a new Test Cycle in Zephyr specified project

Toolset: Test Cycles

Parameters:

  • projectKey (string) required: Jira project key.

  • name (string) required

  • description (string): Description outlining the scope.

  • plannedStartDate (string): Planned start date of the test cycle. Format: yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss'Z'

  • plannedEndDate (string): The planned end date of the test cycle. Format: yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss'Z'

  • jiraProjectVersion (number): Jira Project Version ID. Relates to 'Version' or 'Releases' in Jira projects.

  • 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.

  • 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 Cycle in project SA to ensure that the axial pump can be enabled

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

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

  1. Create a Test Cycle to ensure that the axial pump can be enabled. The test cycle should be in project MM2, have status 'In Progress', and be planned from 2026-03-01 to 2026-03-10

{
  "projectKey": "MM2",
  "name": "Check axial pump",
  "description": "Ensure the axial pump can be enabled",
  "statusName": "In Progress",
  "plannedStartDate": "2026-03-01T00:00:00Z",
  "plannedEndDate": "2026-03-10T00:00:00Z"
}

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

  1. Create a Test Cycle 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",
  "description": "Make sure the axial pump operates at the required strength",
  "customFields": {
    "Axial pump strength": 5
  }
}

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

  1. Create a Test Cycle in project MM2 to verify the performance of the axial pump with Jira Project Version ID 10001, owner Atlassian Account ID '12', in folder with ID 18

{
  "projectKey": "MM2",
  "name": "Check axial pump performance",
  "description": "Ensure the axial pump performs within acceptable limits",
  "jiraProjectVersion": 10001,
  "ownerId": "12",
  "folderId": 18
}

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
ownerIdNoAtlassian Account ID of the Jira user.
folderIdNoID of a folder to place the entity within.
projectKeyYesJira project key.
statusNameNoThe status name.
descriptionNoDescription outlining the scope.
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.
plannedEndDateNoThe planned end date of the test cycle. Format: yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss'Z'
plannedStartDateNoPlanned start date of the test cycle. Format: yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss'Z'
jiraProjectVersionNoJira Project Version ID. Relates to 'Version' or 'Releases' in Jira projects.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe ID of the entity
keyNo
selfNo
Install Server

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already signal that this is not a read-only operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create'. It does not mention side effects, whether duplicate cycles are possible, or whether referenced statuses, folders, or versions must pre-exist. This does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not add meaningful transparency.

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 structure is clear with headings for Toolset, Parameters, and Examples, and the first sentence is front-loaded. However, the parameter section largely repeats the schema descriptions, making the description noticeably longer than necessary. The four examples are useful, but the overall text would benefit from trimming duplicate parameter explanations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 10 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete for making a call: all parameters are listed and examples show realistic payloads. It does not, however, explain how to obtain valid values for IDs like folderId, jiraProjectVersion, statusName, or ownerId, nor does it point to lookup tools such as zephyr_get_statuses or zephyr_get_folders.

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 description coverage is high (90%), so the description need not compensate for missing schema meaning. The parameter list mostly duplicates the input schema, while the examples add some practical illustration of valid values and groupings. There is no substantial semantic information beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('Test Cycle'), and a scope ('in Zephyr specified project'). The 'Toolset: Test Cycles' heading reinforces the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like zephyr_update_test_cycle or qtm4j_create_test_cycle, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as zephyr_update_test_cycle, zephyr_create_test_execution, or qtm4j_create_test_cycle. The examples illustrate valid calls, but they do not explain when this tool should be preferred or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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

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