Skip to main content
Glama
SmartBear

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Zephyr: Update Test Execution Steps

zephyr_update_test_execution_steps
Idempotent

Update test execution steps in Zephyr with a new status and actual results, modifying only the fields you include.

Instructions

Update test steps for a given Test Execution in Zephyr. This operation updates the provided steps with their execution status and actual results. Only the fields included in the request will be modified.

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]+

  • steps (array)

Examples:

  1. Mark the status of all steps in the test execution 'SA-E1' as 'Pass'. Set the actual result of step 1 to 'Dashboard widgets loaded correctly' and step 2 to 'Navigation menu responded correctly to user interactions'.

{
  "testExecutionIdOrKey": "SA-E1",
  "steps": [
    {
      "statusName": "Pass",
      "actualResult": "Dashboard widgets loaded correctly"
    },
    {
      "statusName": "Pass",
      "actualResult": "Navigation menu responded correctly to user interactions"
    }
  ]
}

Expected Output: Test steps are updated successfully, but no output is expected.

  1. Update only the status of step 2 in test execution 'SA-E5' to 'Fail'. Do not modify any other fields.

{
  "testExecutionIdOrKey": "SA-E5",
  "steps": [
    {},
    {
      "statusName": "Fail"
    }
  ]
}

Expected Output: The test execution steps are updated, but no output is expected.

  1. Update only the actual results of the steps in test execution '10'. Set the actual result of step 1 to 'API returned 500 error' and step 2 actual result to 'API returned 200 success'

{
  "testExecutionIdOrKey": "10",
  "steps": [
    {
      "actualResult": "API returned 500 error"
    },
    {
      "actualResult": "API returned 200 success"
    }
  ]
}

Expected Output: Test steps are updated successfully, but no output is expected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsNo
testExecutionIdOrKeyYesThe ID or key of the test execution. Test execution keys are of the format [A-Z]+-E[0-9]+
Install Server

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context: only fields included in the request are modified, and the examples demonstrate that empty step objects leave steps untouched and that no output is returned. It does not explicitly spell out positional indexing, though examples imply it.

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 organized with examples and expected outputs, but it is longer than needed: the no-output note is repeated three times and the Parameters list largely duplicates schema info that is already present. Each example still earns its place by showing partial update behavior.

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?

The examples cover common invocation patterns and the description notes there is no expected output, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it never states how the steps array maps to test execution steps, whether statusName values are restricted, or what happens if the array length mismatches the number of steps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With schema coverage at 50%, the description compensates by showing complete JSON examples for status-only, actual-result-only, and combined updates, including an empty object to leave a step unchanged. The Parameters section itself is thin for steps, but the examples give the agent enough structural understanding.

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 names the exact verb (update), resource (test steps for a given Test Execution), and the fields affected (execution status and actual results). It also clarifies partial-update semantics, which distinguishes it from the sibling update_test_execution tool.

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 description and examples make clear the tool is for updating step-level status/results, but it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings such as zephyr_update_test_execution or says when not to use it. The intended usage is inferred from the title and examples rather than stated as guidance.

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