qtm4j-mcp-server

create_test_case_folder

Create a new test case folder in a QMetry project. Specify folder name and optional parent folder to organize test cases hierarchically.

Instructions

Create a testcase folder (POST /projects/{projectId}/testcase-folders). parentId -1 = root.

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": {
      "folderName": "<folderName>"
    },
    "name": "create_test_case_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	No	QMetry project ID (default: none)
`folderName`	Yes	New folder name
`parentId`	No	Parent folder id from list_test_case_folders; omit for -1 (root)
`description`	No	Optional folder description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the POST method (destructive) and a special value for parentId, but lacks information on permissions, error scenarios, or idempotency.

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 concise (one sentence plus a note) and front-loads the purpose. It could be more structured but is not verbose.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, error handling, and typical usage flow. It omits critical operational details.

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 coverage is 100% and the tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The note about parentId being -1 for root is already in the schema description.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'testcase folder', with the API path providing additional context. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with adding test cases to folders or listing folders.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_test_case_folders, add_test_case_to_folders). It does not mention prerequisites 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.