Skip to main content
Glama
SmartBear

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Zephyr: Get Test Cycles linked to a Jira issue

zephyr_get_test_cycles_linked_to_a_jira_issue
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve test cycles associated with a Jira issue by providing its key.

Instructions

Get test cycles 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 cycles are linked to Jira issue PROJ-123

{
  "issueKey": "PROJ-123"
}

Expected Output: The List of test cycles linked to Jira issue PROJ-123 with their IDs

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesThe key of the Jira issue

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
testCyclesYes

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,
-    "description": "ID and link to the test cycle resource.",
-    "properties": {
-      "id": {
-        "description": "The ID of the entity",
-        "maximum": 9007199254740991,
-        "minimum": 1,
-        "type": "integer"
-      },
-      "self": {
-        "description": "The REST API endpoint to get more resource details.",
-        "format": "uri",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "id"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / testCycles
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "description": "ID and link to the test cycle resource.",
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "description": "The ID of the entity",
+        "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "self": {
+        "description": "The REST API endpoint to get more resource details.",
+        "format": "uri",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "id"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "result"
-]New value: +[
+  "testCycles"
+]
  2. Addedv0.40.0
  3. Removedv0.34.0
  4. First observedv0.27.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds an example and expected output ('The List of test cycles linked to Jira issue PROJ-123 with their IDs'), but does not disclose deeper behaviors such as pagination, result limits, or authentication requirements. No contradiction with 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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, and the example adds practical value. The 'Parameters' section slightly duplicates the input schema, and the 'Toolset' header is minor metadata, but overall there is little waste.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a simple read-only tool with one required parameter, full schema coverage, a safe annotation profile, and an output schema. The description and example together provide everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%: issueKey is described and constrained by the pattern '.+-[0-9]+'. The description restates the parameter and provides a valid example ('PROJ-123') but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Get test cycles linked to a Jira issue in Zephyr', and the example clarifies the exact call. However, it does not distinguish this from related sibling tools like zephyr_get_test_cycles or zephyr_get_issue_link_test_cases beyond the tool name itself.

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 a concrete example use case but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. There is no mention of related Zephyr link-querying tools or when a different sibling 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools