Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Zephyr

MCP Zephyr

by donyfs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_reference_data

Retrieve all reference data including statuses and priorities in one call for Zephyr Scale Cloud test management.

Instructions

Get all reference data (statuses and priorities) in a single call

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_reference_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

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 full burden. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and misses key operational context for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence adds value by specifying scope and efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a data-fetching tool in a testing context, more context is needed to guide the agent properly.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('reference data'), specifying it includes 'statuses and priorities' in a 'single call'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_statuses and list_priorities by combining them, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other data-fetching tools like get_project or get_test_case.

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?

The description implies usage when needing both statuses and priorities together, as opposed to using separate list_statuses or list_priorities tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools