qtm4j-mcp-server

close_test_cycle

Close a test cycle by updating its status to Done using the required status ID.

Instructions

Close a test cycle by setting its status to Done.

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": {
      "testCycleId": "<testCycleId>",
      "statusId": "<statusId>"
    },
    "name": "close_test_cycle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	No	QMetry project ID (default: none)
`testCycleId`	Yes	Test cycle ID
`statusId`	Yes	Status ID for Done (project-specific, e.g. 621499)

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 only states that the status is set to Done, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, whether it's reversible, or what happens to associated test cases.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and front-loaded, with no redundant words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has a low parameter count and no output schema, but the description is minimal. While it conveys the basic action, it lacks detail on return value or behavioral context, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what 'Close a test cycle' implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Close a test cycle by setting its status to Done' clearly states the verb (close) and resource (test cycle), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_test_cycle or add_test_case_to_cycle.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_execution_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or context for invocation.

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