zephyr-squad-server-mcp

update_folder

Update a folder's name and description in Zephyr test cycles. Specify folder, cycle, project, version and supply optional fields to modify.

Instructions

Update a folder's name and/or description.

The API requires the folder's full context, so cycle_id and project/version (which accept keys/names or ids — prefer ids when you have them, to skip a lookup; -1 = Unscheduled) must be supplied alongside folder_id, the numeric ID from list_cycle_folders. Only the optional fields you pass are sent; omit one to leave it unchanged. Returns {id, responseMessage}.

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": {
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "cycle_id": "<cycle_id>",
      "project": "<project>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "update_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`folder_id`	Yes
`cycle_id`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`name`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided; description discloses partial update behavior (only passed fields updated) and return format {id, responseMessage}. Adds value by explaining the API's requirement for full context.

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?

Concise and well-structured: starts with main action, then requirements, optional fields, and return format. No wasted words; 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?

Covers main functionality, required params, optional update behavior, and return format. Lacks edge cases but is complete for a simple update tool given no output schema or annotations.

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%, but description explains the role of each required parameter, including that folder_id comes from list_cycle_folders, and that project/version accept keys/names or IDs. Adds meaning beyond schema types and titles.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a folder's name and/or description', specifying the exact verb and resource, and differentiating from create/delete siblings.

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?

Provides clear context on required parameters (folder_id, cycle_id, project/version) and explains that only passed optional fields are updated, with a tip to prefer IDs. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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