zephyr-squad-server-mcp

list_test_steps

Retrieve test steps for a Zephyr test issue by Jira key or numeric ID. Returns a collection of step details.

Instructions

List the test steps of a Zephyr test issue.

issue accepts a Jira issue key (e.g. SONY-1386) or a numeric issueId (prefer the id when you have it, to skip a lookup). Returns {stepBeanCollection: [...]}.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_test_steps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue`	Yes
`offset`	No
`limit`	No

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 provided, so description must carry full burden. Only mentions return format as stepBeanCollection but does not disclose authentication needs, error handling, or that it only works for Zephyr test issues.

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?

Minimal and efficient: two sentences and a return type line. Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter guidance, then output format. No redundant text.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, so description must detail return values. Only a brief mention of stepBeanCollection without field specs. Missing pagination behavior, default limit, and any error conditions.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning only for 'issue' (key or id preference). Parameters offset and limit have no description, relying on name inference. Incomplete compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 test steps of a Zephyr test issue using the verb 'List' and resource 'test steps'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_step_results by focusing on steps for an issue.

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 the issue parameter (prefer id to skip lookup) but lacks context on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_step_results. No mention of pagination usage or conditions.

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