qtm4j-mcp-server

add_test_case_to_folders

Add a test case version to folders in a QMetry project. Provide the test case ID and folder IDs to assign the test case to those folders.

Instructions

Add a test case version to folders (PUT …/versions/{no} with folders.add). Use folder ids from list_test_case_folders.

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": {
      "testCaseId": "<testCaseId>",
      "addFolderIds": "<addFolderIds>"
    },
    "name": "add_test_case_to_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	No	QMetry project ID (default: none)
`testCaseId`	Yes	Internal id or key PE26-TC-…
`versionNo`	No
`addFolderIds`	Yes	Folder ids to add

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the PUT method, implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or authorization needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads key information. It is efficient, though could benefit from more structure.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It lacks details on behavior, prerequisites, and error cases, leaving the agent with gaps.

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 description coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only relates addFolderIds to folder IDs from another tool.

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 (add) and resource (test case version to folders), includes the API endpoint and method, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_test_case_from_folders.

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?

It advises using folder IDs from list_test_case_folders, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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