zephyr-squad-server-mcp

list_execution_defects

Retrieve Jira defects linked to a test execution by providing its numeric ID.

Instructions

List Jira defects currently linked to an execution.

execution_id is the numeric id from list_executions/search_executions. Returns a map keyed by execution id -> {defectKey -> defect summary}.

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": {
      "execution_id": "<execution_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_execution_defects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`execution_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format but does not mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or pagination. As a read operation, it is likely safe, but the lack of behavioral details is a gap.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. The return format description is a bit informal but clear. No wasted words, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality, parameter source, and return format. However, it lacks details on error handling and the exact structure of the returned map (e.g., fields of defect summary).

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by specifying that execution_id is a numeric id from list_executions/search_executions. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition, though more details (e.g., valid range) could be included.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists Jira defects linked to an execution, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like link_execution_defects (modification) and get_defect_statistics (aggregates). However, the return format mentioning 'map keyed by execution id' introduces slight ambiguity since only one execution_id is input.

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 mentions that execution_id comes from list_executions/search_executions, providing source context. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like link_execution_defects or get_defect_statistics, but the read vs. write distinction is implied.

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