Skip to main content
Glama
SmartBear

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Zephyr: Get Issue Link Test Cases

zephyr_get_issue_link_test_cases
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get test cases linked to a Jira issue by supplying its key. Returns the list of linked test cases with their keys and versions.

Instructions

Get test cases linked to a Jira issue in Zephyr

Toolset: Issue Links

Parameters:

  • issueKey (string) required: The key of the Jira issue

Examples:

  1. Check which test cases are linked to Jira issue PROJ-123

{
  "issueKey": "PROJ-123"
}

Expected Output: The List of test cases linked to Jira issue PROJ-123 with their keys and versions

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesThe key of the Jira issue

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
testCasesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.41.0
    • addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result
      Removed value: -{
-  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
-  "items": {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "key": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "self": {
-        "description": "The REST API endpoint to get more resource details.",
-        "format": "uri",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "version": {
-        "maximum": 9007199254740991,
-        "minimum": -9007199254740991,
-        "type": "integer"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / testCases
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "key": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "self": {
+        "description": "The REST API endpoint to get more resource details.",
+        "format": "uri",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "version": {
+        "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+        "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "result"
-]New value: +[
+  "testCases"
+]
  2. Addedv0.40.0
  3. Removedv0.34.0
  4. First observedv0.27.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only (`readOnlyHint: true`), idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the expected output (list of test cases with keys and versions) and the 'Issue Links' toolset, which gives helpful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with bold headers, a parameter list, and an example. It is concise, though the JSON example is a bit verbose; every section serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter, the description covers purpose, parameters, example, and expected output. Combined with the output schema and annotations, it is sufficient for an agent to call correctly, though it omits details like pagination or error conditions.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter `issueKey` with 100% description coverage, including a pattern. The description repeats the parameter and shows an example value (`PROJ-123`), which reinforces the format but doesn't add significant semantic meaning 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 description clearly states it retrieves 'test cases linked to a Jira issue' in Zephyr, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `zephyr_get_test_cycles_linked_to_a_jira_issue` and `zephyr_get_test_executions_linked_to_a_jira_issue` by the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides an example use case but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It does not mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools, leaving the selection decision to the agent based on the name alone.

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