qtm4j-mcp-server

get_attachment_url

Retrieve a presigned URL to upload a file to a specific test case execution in QMetry.

Instructions

Get a presigned URL for uploading an attachment to a test case 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": {
      "testCycleId": "<testCycleId>",
      "fileName": "<fileName>",
      "testCaseExecutionId": "<testCaseExecutionId>"
    },
    "name": "get_attachment_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`testCycleId`	Yes	Test cycle ID
`projectId`	No	QMetry project ID (default: none)
`fileName`	Yes	Name of the file to attach
`testCaseExecutionId`	Yes	Test case execution ID

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get a presigned URL for uploading' but does not disclose that the URL grants temporary write access, typical expiration, or any side effects. The description implies a read operation (getting a URL) but the URL enables a write (upload), which is not clarified.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loaded with the key action. It contains no superfluous words, but could include brief context without harming conciseness.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a presigned URL is, how to use it, expiration, allowed file types, or return format. This is a significant gap for an upload URL tool.

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% with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'presigned URL for uploading'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'presigned URL for uploading an attachment to a test case execution', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remove_test_case_from_folders' or 'create_test_case'. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 other attachment-related tools or when to use the returned URL. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, 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.