zephyr-squad-server-mcp

move_executions_to_folder

Move test executions from a cycle to a specified internal folder. Supports selecting specific executions or moving all, with optional wait for job completion.

Instructions

Move executions from a cycle into an internal folder.

Moves all executions in the cycle when schedules is omitted, or only the listed execution ids when schedules is provided. project/version accept keys/names or ids (prefer ids when you have them, to skip a lookup; -1 = Unscheduled). This is an asynchronous ZAPI operation: it returns a jobProgressToken. With wait=True (default) the tool polls the job to completion and returns the final job-progress payload; with wait=False it returns the raw {jobProgressToken} so you can poll later with get_job_progress.

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>",
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "project": "<project>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "move_executions_to_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cycle_id`	Yes
`folder_id`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`schedules`	No
`wait`	No
`timeout`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature, return of jobProgressToken, and polling behavior. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether executions are removed from original location), permission requirements, or error scenarios.

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?

The description is well-structured: a brief purpose sentence followed by detailed behavior. It front-loads the core action, then explains conditional logic and async behavior concisely without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (jobProgressToken or final payload) and key parameters. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for understanding the tool's functionality.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well. It explains the dual behavior of schedules (null vs list), the project/version parameter types with preference for ids, and the wait/timeout parameters. Only the timeout unit is implicit (likely seconds), but overall adds significant meaning.

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 tool moves executions from a cycle into an internal folder. It distinguishes between moving all executions when schedules is omitted or only specific ones when provided, which sets it apart from sibling tools like copy_executions_to_cycle or create_folder.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the schedules parameter and explains the async behavior with wait=True/False. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though the context makes it clear.

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