Skip to main content
Glama
TCSoftInc

TestCollab MCP Server

by TCSoftInc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_test_plan

Creates a TestCollab test plan in one MCP call, optionally adding test cases, configurations, and assignments so AI assistants can organize and execute testing work.

Instructions

Create a test plan in TestCollab using a single MCP tool call.

Before calling this tool:

  • Ask follow-up questions for missing required information.

  • Do not infer or auto-generate required values like project_id.

Execution flow:

  1. POST /testplans

  2. POST /testplantestcases/bulkAdd (optional)

  3. POST /testplanconfigurations (optional)

  4. POST /testplans/assign (optional)

Optional:

  • project_id

  • title (defaults to "Test Plan DD Month YYYY HH:mm:ss" if omitted)

  • description

  • priority (0=Low, 1=Normal, 2=High)

  • test_plan_folder (ID or title)

  • release (ID or title)

  • start_date, end_date

  • custom_fields

  • test_cases (test_case_ids/selector/tag_id/tag_name/assignee; assignee supports user ID/"me"/name)

  • override_assignees (default false: keeps default case assignees, assigns only cases with none)

  • configurations

  • assignment (supports user IDs/"me"/names; if user says "assign to me", use "me")

Example: { "project_id": 16, "title": "Release 2.9 Regression", "priority": 1, "test_cases": { "test_case_ids": [101, 102, 103] }, "configurations": [ [{ "field": "Browser", "value": "Chrome" }, { "field": "OS", "value": "Windows" }] ], "assignment": { "executor": "team", "assignment_criteria": "testCase", "assignment_method": "automatic", "user_ids": [27, 31] } }

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoTest plan title (optional; defaults to "Test Plan DD Month YYYY HH:mm:ss")
releaseNoRelease ID or title
end_dateNoPlanned end date (YYYY-MM-DD)
priorityNoPriority: 0=Low, 1=Normal, 2=High
assignmentNoAssignment payload to execute after creation
project_idNoProject ID (optional if TC_DEFAULT_PROJECT is set)
start_dateNoPlanned start date (YYYY-MM-DD)
test_casesNoTest cases to bulk-add immediately after plan creation
descriptionNoTest plan description (HTML supported)
custom_fieldsNoArray of test plan custom field values
configurationsNoConfiguration matrix to attach to the test plan
test_plan_folderNoTest plan folder ID or title (null to place at root)
override_assigneesNoOverride inherited default assignees with the supplied assignment; false keeps defaults and fills unassigned cases

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / override_assignees
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Override inherited default assignees with the supplied assignment; false keeps defaults and fills unassigned cases",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / test_cases / properties / tag_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Project tag ID to select cases; use tag_id or tag_name",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / test_cases / properties / tag_name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Exact project tag name to select cases; use tag_id or tag_name",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the four-step execution flow, which steps are optional, defaulting behavior (title default, override_assignees default false and what that means, assignee triggering assignment), and the 'assign to me' convention. It omits permission requirements, idempotency, and crucially what happens on partial failure after step 1 succeeds.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then preconditions, then flow, then options and an example. The optional-parameters bullet list is almost a verbatim echo of the 100%-covered schema and adds length without information, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a 13-parameter, deeply nested orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs and sequencing but says nothing about what is returned (plan ID? partial results?), how partial failures are surfaced, or permission prerequisites. Those are real gaps for an agent that must decide whether to retry or chain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's optional-field list, but it does add some value through the end-to-end example that shows how nested test_cases, configurations and assignment compose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a test plan in TestCollab') and clarifies that plan creation plus optional test-case addition, configurations and assignment all happen in one call, which meaningfully separates it from update_test_plan/get_test_plan. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must still infer that modifications go elsewhere.

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 'Before calling this tool' block gives concrete pre-call rules: ask follow-ups for missing required info and never infer values like project_id. That is strong guidance for a create tool, though it stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use update_test_plan to modify an existing plan).

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