zephyr-squad-server-mcp

create_test_step

Add a test step to a Zephyr test issue, specifying the action, test data, and expected result.

Instructions

Add a test step to a Zephyr test issue.

issue accepts a Jira issue key or numeric issueId (prefer the id when you have it, to skip a lookup). step is the action, data the test data, result the expected result. Returns the created step.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue": "<issue>",
      "step": "<step>"
    },
    "name": "create_test_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue`	Yes
`step`	Yes
`data`	No
`result`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains creation and return of step, but doesn't disclose ordering, limits, or side effects like whether steps are appended or inserted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers all 4 parameters, return value, and core behavior. Missing validation details like max lengths or constraints, but adequate for a simple creation tool.

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 0% schema coverage, description compensates well: explains issue accepts key or numeric ID, step is action, data is test data, result is expected result. Adds useful semantic detail beyond schema titles.

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 verb 'Add' and resource 'test step to a Zephyr test issue', with specific parameter roles. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_test_step and update_test_step.

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?

Provides guidance on parameter usage (prefer issue ID, step/data/result meaning) but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives among many sibling tools. Lacks context for tool selection.

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