zephyr-squad-server-mcp

get_executions_by_defect

Retrieve all test executions linked to a specific Jira defect, including step-level defects. Returns execution details and total count.

Instructions

List executions linked to a given defect (incl. step-level defects).

defect is a Jira bug key or id. Returns {executions, totalCount}.

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": {
      "defect": "<defect>"
    },
    "name": "get_executions_by_defect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`defect`	Yes
`max_records`	No
`offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it lists executions with step-level defects and the return format. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or read-only nature beyond what is inferred. Adequate but minimal extra info beyond the schema.

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 short sentences plus a note; every sentence provides value. No fluff. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, defect parameter, and return shape. However, it could be more complete on pagination details (e.g., max_records limits) and error cases. Still mostly adequate for a simple list tool.

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 0%, so description compensates partially. It explains the defect parameter as a Jira bug key or id, and mentions return shape. But it does not describe max_records or offset beyond schema defaults. Adds meaning for one parameter, not all.

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 it lists executions linked to a given defect, including step-level defects. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'executions', and distinguishes from siblings like get_executions_by_test or list_executions by focusing on defect linkage.

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 implies usage when a defect is known (defect is a Jira bug key or id), but does not explicitly exclude or compare to related tools like link_execution_defects or list_execution_defects. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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