zephyr-squad-server-mcp

update_execution

Update a test execution's status by its numeric ID using ZAPI status codes (e.g., PASS, FAIL, BLOCKED). Returns the updated execution.

Instructions

Set an execution's status by its numeric id.

status is a ZAPI execution-status code: -1=UNEXECUTED, 1=PASS, 2=FAIL, 3=WIP, 4=BLOCKED, 5=PENDING, 6=APPROVED, 7=CANCELLED. Returns the updated execution.

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>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "update_execution"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`execution_id`	Yes
`status`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('Returns the updated execution'), but does not mention side effects, error cases, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential information: purpose, status codes, and return. However, it could be improved by noting constraints (e.g., only updates status, not assignment) and error handling.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the status parameter's possible values well, but does not clarify the execution_id beyond 'numeric id.' Partially compensates for status but not for id.

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 action: 'Set an execution's status by its numeric id.' It specifies the verb (set/update), resource (execution status), and mechanism (numeric id), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 context by listing valid status codes, helping the agent understand when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for other operations.

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