Skip to main content
Glama
TCSoftInc

TestCollab MCP Server

by TCSoftInc

update_test_case

Update an existing test case with specific fields like title, priority, suite, steps, or tags. Only provided fields are modified, leaving others unchanged.

Instructions

Update an existing test case in TestCollab. Only provided fields will be updated. Tip: Call get_project_context first to resolve suite/tag/custom field names to IDs. Tip: If you need existing steps (e.g., to fill missing expected results), call get_test_case first and then use steps_patch.

Required: id (test case ID)

Optional fields:

  • title: New title

  • suite: Move to different suite

  • description: New description (HTML)

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

  • steps: Replaces all existing steps

  • steps_patch: Patch steps by step number (1-based) without replacing all steps

  • tags: Replaces all existing tags

  • requirements: Replaces all existing requirements

  • custom_fields: Update specific custom fields

Example: { "id": 1712, "title": "Updated login test", "priority": 2 }

Example - patch a single step: { "id": 1714, "steps_patch": [ { "step_number": 1, "expected_result": "Appropriate expected result" } ] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTest case ID to update (required)
project_idNoProject ID (optional if default is set)
titleNoNew test case title
suiteNoMove to a different suite by ID or title (null to remove)
descriptionNoNew description (HTML supported)
priorityNoNew priority: 0=Low, 1=Normal, 2=High
stepsNoReplace all steps
steps_patchNoPatch steps by step number (1-based) without replacing all steps
tagsNoReplace tags with these IDs or names
requirementsNoReplace requirements with these IDs or names
custom_fieldsNoUpdate custom field values (id optional if name provided)
attachmentsNoReplace attachments with these file IDs
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains partial update semantics and the behavior of steps_patch (patch by step number without replacing all steps). Examples illustrate usage. However, it does not describe return values, error scenarios, or auth requirements, which would improve transparency.

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 fairly long but well-structured: purpose sentence, tips, field list, and examples. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more compact. However, given the complexity, it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers all fields, includes usage examples, and provides integration tips with other tools. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: it organizes fields, clarifies priority values (0=Low, etc.), explains the difference between steps and steps_patch, and provides examples. This helps the agent select and fill parameters correctly.

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 clearly states the action ('Update'), resource ('test case'), and scope ('in TestCollab'). It also explicitly says only provided fields will be updated, which distinguishes it from full-replace operations. Sibling tools like create_test_case and get_test_case are different in purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit tips: call get_project_context to resolve IDs, and call get_test_case to get existing steps for patching. This guides the agent on prerequisites and alternatives. It also lists required and optional fields, making usage clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

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/TCSoftInc/testcollab-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server