Skip to main content
Glama
SmartBear

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Zephyr: Update Test Execution

zephyr_update_test_execution
Idempotent

Modify status, environment, dates, executor, assignee, or comment of a Zephyr test execution by providing only those fields; null values are ignored.

Instructions

Update an existing Test Execution in Zephyr. This operation only updates specified fields in the payload and ignores null or undefined values.

Toolset: Test Executions

Parameters:

  • testExecutionIdOrKey (string) required: The ID or key of the test execution. Test execution keys are of the format [A-Z]+-E[0-9]+

  • statusName (string): The status name.

  • 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.

Examples:

  1. Update the status name to 'PASS' and the environment name to 'ENV-1' in the test execution 'SA-E40'.

{
  "testExecutionIdOrKey": "SA-E40",
  "statusName": "PASS",
  "environmentName": "ENV-1"
}

Expected Output: The test execution should be updated, but no output is expected.

  1. Update execution time and actual end date for test execution id '1' (keep everything else unchanged).

{
  "testExecutionIdOrKey": "1",
  "executionTime": "2018-05-19T13:15:13Z",
  "actualEndDate": "2018-05-20T13:15:13Z"
}

Expected Output: The test execution should be updated, but no output is expected.

  1. For test execution 'SA-E40', update the test executor and assignee to be the user with ID 10000.

{
  "testExecutionIdOrKey": "SA-E40",
  "executedById": "10000",
  "assignedToId": "10000"
}

Expected Output: The test execution should be updated, but no output is expected.

  1. In test execution 'SA-E40', add a comment saying that this execution was updated via API.

{
  "testExecutionIdOrKey": "SA-E40",
  "comment": "execution updated via API"
}

Expected Output: The test execution should be updated, but no output is expected.

  1. Remove the assigned user from test execution 'SA-E40'.

{
  "testExecutionIdOrKey": "SA-E40",
  "assignedToId": null
}

Expected Output: The test execution should be updated, but no output is expected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentNoComment added against overall test case execution.
statusNameNoThe status name.
assignedToIdNoAtlassian Account ID of the Jira user.
executedByIdNoAtlassian Account ID of the Jira user.
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.
testExecutionIdOrKeyYesThe ID or key of the test execution. Test execution keys are of the format [A-Z]+-E[0-9]+

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.40.0
  2. Removedv0.34.0
  3. First observedv0.27.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description usefully discloses partial-update semantics and states that no output is expected, but its behavior is contradictory: it says null values are ignored, yet example 5 uses assignedToId: null to remove an assignee. Additionally, example 2 sends an ISO date string for executionTime even though the description and schema define it as an integer in milliseconds, muddying the expected behavior.

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 organized: a terse purpose sentence, parameter list, and labeled JSON examples. It is somewhat longer than necessary because the same 'no output expected' line is repeated across all five examples, but the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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?

All eight parameters are documented and the examples cover common operations, plus the description explicitly notes that no output is returned. The definition is not fully reliable, though, because the null-clearing behavior and executionTime example conflict with the stated semantics, so an agent cannot confidently handle removal or time updates.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description did not need to carry the parameter-documentation burden, and the parameter list mostly mirrors the schema. The examples add context, but one example contradicts the schema by placing a date-time string in executionTime, which can mislead an agent into sending an invalid payload.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Update an existing Test Execution in Zephyr,' and clarifies that it is a partial update that targets only specified fields. It is clearly distinguishable from get/create executions by the word 'existing,' though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with zephyr_update_test_execution_steps.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The examples show practical scenarios (changing status, updating dates, assigning users, commenting, clearing a field), which imply when to use the tool. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance or mention of when zephyr_create_test_execution or zephyr_update_test_execution_steps 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