zephyr-squad-server-mcp

list_executions

List executions in a test cycle, optionally scoped to a folder. Get execution details, status mappings, and record count.

Instructions

List the executions in a cycle (optionally narrowed to a folder).

project/version accept keys/names or ids (prefer ids when you have them, to skip a lookup; -1 = Unscheduled). Returns {status, executions, recordsCount} where status maps status ids to their definitions.

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": {
      "cycle_id": "<cycle_id>",
      "project": "<project>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "list_executions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cycle_id`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`folder_id`	No
`offset`	No
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses return structure ({status, executions, recordsCount}) and parameter behavior (project/version accept keys/names/ids, -1 for Unscheduled). But does not explain pagination (offset, limit) or side effects; no annotations provided.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, parameter tips, return shape. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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?

Covers purpose, key parameters, and return shape. Missing pagination details and explanation of cycle_id. No differentiation from search_executions.

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 coverage is 0%. Description adds meaning for project/version (keys/names/ids, special -1) and folder_id (narrowing). But cycle_id, offset, limit are not explained beyond schema defaults.

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 'List the executions in a cycle (optionally narrowed to a folder)', specifying the verb (list), resource (executions), and scope (cycle, optionally folder). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_executions.

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?

Implies usage context: for listing executions within a cycle, optionally narrowed by folder. Advises preferring IDs for project/version. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives among sibling tools.

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