Skip to main content
Glama
SmartBear

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Zephyr: Create Test Execution

zephyr_create_test_execution

Create a test execution for a specific test case in a test cycle, recording status, environment, timing, and custom fields to track testing results.

Instructions

Create a new Test Execution for a Test Case within a specific Test Cycle

Toolset: Test Executions

Parameters:

  • projectKey (string) required: Jira project key.

  • testCaseKey (string) required: Key of test case the execution applies to. NOTE: Test cases with call to test, parameters and test data are not supported.

  • testCycleKey (string) required: Key of test cycle the execution applies to.

  • statusName (string) required: The status name.

  • testScriptResults (array)

  • environmentName (string): Environment assigned to the test case.

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

  • executionTime (number): Actual test execution time in milliseconds.

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

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

  • comment (string): Comment added against overall test case execution.

  • 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 Passed execution for test case SA-T1 in cycle SA-R1

{
  "projectKey": "SA",
  "testCaseKey": "SA-T1",
  "testCycleKey": "SA-R1",
  "statusName": "Pass"
}

Expected Output: The newly created Test Execution with execution details

  1. Create a Failed execution with execution time, environment and comment

{
  "projectKey": "MM2",
  "testCaseKey": "MM2-T15",
  "testCycleKey": "MM2-R3",
  "statusName": "Fail",
  "environmentName": "Staging",
  "executionTime": 125000,
  "comment": "Step 3 failed due to timeout<br>Logs attached."
}

Expected Output: The newly created Test Execution including environment and timing information

  1. Create execution with custom fields and assignment

{
  "projectKey": "SA",
  "testCaseKey": "SA-T5",
  "testCycleKey": "SA-R2",
  "statusName": "Pass",
  "executedById": "5b10ac8d82e05b22cc7d4ef5",
  "assignedToId": "5b10ac8d82e05b22cc7d4ef6",
  "actualEndDate": "2026-02-17T10:15:30Z",
  "customFields": {
    "Execution Build": "1.0.3",
    "Tested Browser": "Chrome",
    "Execution Date": "2026-02-17"
  }
}

Expected Output: The newly created Test Execution including custom field values

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentNoComment added against overall test case execution.
projectKeyYesJira project key.
statusNameYesThe status name.
testCaseKeyYesKey of test case the execution applies to. NOTE: Test cases with call to test, parameters and test data are not supported.
assignedToIdNoAtlassian Account ID of the Jira user.
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.
executedByIdNoAtlassian Account ID of the Jira user.
testCycleKeyYesKey of test cycle the execution applies to.
actualEndDateNoThe actual end date of the test cycle. Format: yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss'Z'
executionTimeNoActual test execution time in milliseconds.
environmentNameNoEnvironment assigned to the test case.
testScriptResultsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe ID of the entity
selfNo
Install Server

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating behavior is expected. The description adds a useful unsupported-test-case caveat and shows expected outputs in examples, but does not go deeper into side effects, duplicate executions, or prerequisites.

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 well-organized with headings, notes, and examples, and it front-loads the purpose. However, it redundantly lists all parameters with descriptions that already exist in the input schema, making it longer than necessary.

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 the 12-parameter surface area, the examples cover required fields as well as optional ones like executionTime, environmentName, executedById, customFields, and actualEndDate. An output schema is present, so the description does not need to detail return values; no major invocation-critical gap is evident.

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 92%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter list largely repeats the schema descriptions; the main additions are concrete JSON examples and a repeated note about HTML/custom-field formatting, which are helpful but not a major semantic boost over the 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 opens with a specific verb and noun ('Create a new Test Execution') and clearly scopes the request to 'a Test Case within a specific Test Cycle.' It differentiates from sibling get/update/delete operations by naming the creation action and resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is explicit: create a test execution. It also provides a clear exclusion by warning that test cases with call to test, parameters, and test data are not supported. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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